Skip to main content

Full text of "Shah Commission Of Inquiry 3rd Final Report"

See other formats


$Zfi& ^p$ 



SHAH COMMISSION OF INQUIRY 



(Appointed under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952) 



THIRD AND FINAL REPORT 



AUGUST 6, 1978 



SHAH COMMISSION OF INQUIRY 



(Appointed under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952) 



THIRD AND FINAL REPORT 



AUGUST 6, 1978 



CONTENTS 



Chapter XVI 
Chapter XVII 



Chaptbr XVIII 
Chapter XIX 
Chapter XX 
Chapter XXI. 
Chapter XXII 
Chapter XXIII 
Chaptbr XXIV 
Chapter XXV 
GhapterXXVI 



Xif™ Con6nemcnt ** Torture of Shri Lawrence Feroandes by the PoIice : and his Maltreat 

■ ■• • * • • • 

Cases from Haryana State : 
(0 Detention of Shri Murlidhar Dalraia . 
(ii) Detention of Shri M. L. Kak ,' . 

<iii) Detention of Cdr. Pritam Dutta 

* • • * • . * • 

(iv) Detention of Shri Ishwar Lai Choudhary 

(v) Detention of Shri Pitambar Lai Goval 

(vi) Use of force in the family planning programme in village Uttawar, District Gurgaon, 

Haryana 
Abuse of Authority— in Service matters . 

Arrests and Detentions— General and Statewise report . 

Conditions in Jails— Statewise report . 

Implementation of Family Planning Programme— General and Statewise report 

Demolitions— General and Statewise report ....... 

Complaints and the manner of their disposal 

General Observations , 

Conclusion . , . . ■■ . 

Summary of Findings, Observations and Recommendations 

APPENDICES : 



(}) Appendix A 
(ii) Appendix B 
(iii) Appendix C 



Paces 

ent 

1-12 

13—15 
15—18 
18—21 
22—23 
23—28 

28—33 
34—38 

39—134 

135—152 

153—207 

208—217 

218—227 

228—232 

. 233" 

234—262 

263—265 

266 

267—284 



0) 



3S£KirBy.'-^.;*V--»SSS 



CHAPTER XVI 
Wrongful Confinement and Torture of Shri Lawrence Fernandes by Ine Police and Maltreatment in Jail 



16.1 Shri Lawrence Fernandes of Bangalore 
complained to the Commission that he was "taken 
away from his house in Bangalore at about 8.4.5 
p.m. on May I, 1976, by two policemen— Inspector 
Narayan Rao and another officer belonging to the 
Corps of Defectives of the Karnataka Police, 
, Bangalore ; that he was taken to the office of the 
Corps of Detectives and was interrogated by the 
police officers regarding the whereabouts of his 
brother, Shri George Fernandes ; that Shri Krishna- 
•murthy Raju, Superintendent of Police of Corps 
of Detectives, also interrogated him in this connec- 
tion and when he could not give information to 
the satisfaction of the police officers, Shri Ram *ot 
annoyed and asked the police officers "to start the 
work" ; that he was brutally assaulted by 8 to 10 
policemen including Inspector Narayan Rao 
Inspector Shiva Swamy and 5 to 7 other officers • 
that he was beaten with lathis, in consequence of 
which he suffered injuries on his hands and feet and 
the rest Of his bodv ; that the assault continued till 
3.00 a.m. the next morning, and during this period 
he was not given anything to eat or drink. 

16.2 The story of Shri ' Lawrence that he was 

ih42 away y the police on the right- of May 1 
1976, is corroborated by the report" lodged by his 
father, Shri J. J. Fernandes, with the police control 
room on May 2, 1976. In the "Crime and Occur- 
rence Sheet dated May 3, 1976. maintained by the 
Citv Police, incorporating therein reports received 
on May 2, 1976, it is revealed that • a telephonic 
message was received from Shri Jacob Fernandes 
that his son Shri J. J, Fernandas was missing since 
May ], 1976. The name of the missing person is 
entered as M. J Fernandes' and stands' in fact for 
J»n.ri Lawrence ■ Fernandes. Shri Jacob Fernandes 
has stated that he had in his complaint to the police 
control room, informed that the police had taken 
away his son from his house on the night of May 1 
1976 and the enquiries conducted bv him with the 
various City Police stations had yielded no results.- 
{ tne policy control room record relating to the 
Crime and Occurrence Sheet" dated Mav^3 1976 
mentions only the complaint made bv Shri' Jacob 
Fernandes that the complainant's son, Shri I J 
Fernandes was missing. This entrv is silent regard- 
ing what Shri Jacob Fernandes had told the Control 
Room about the police haying taken away his son 
Shri Lawrence Fernandes. Shri Srinivasavulu. the 
then Deoutv Commissioner of Police, has stated 
before the Commission that -an inward register is 
maintained m the control room in which a gist of 
all the messages received bv the control room during 
the day are entered. This inward register was hot 
produced before the Commission on the olea that 
,it was not available. The Commission is unable 



to ascertain the contents of the entry in the inward 
register pursuant to what Shri Jacob Fernandes had 
reported to the Control Room. The mother pf 
Shri Lawrence' Fernandes also submitted a petition 
and a telegram dated May 5, 1976 and May 7, 
1976 respectively, addressed to the Commissioner 
of Police, Bangalore City, and other officials com- 
plaining therein that her son Shri Lawrence Fernan- 
des was taken away by the police from . the 
house on May 1, 1976, at about 8.45 p.m. Copies 
of these had also been sent to the Chief Minister 
of Karnataka, the President of India, the Prime 
Minister of India and the Chief Justice of India. 
These contemporaneous complaints made by the 
parents of Shri Lawrence circumstantially corrobo- 
rate the evidence of Shri Lawrence Fernandes that 
he was in fact taken away from his house bv the 
police on the night of May 1, 1976. 

16.3 Shri Vikram Rao, a "Correspondent of the 
Times of India and one of the accused in the 
Baroda Dynamite Case has stated that he had seen 
Shri Lawrence in police custody on May 1,1976, 
when Shri Lawrence was pointed out to him through 
a window and he was asked to identify Shri 
Lawrence Fernandes. 

n !£ 4 Shri Konarak > ;Son Of Shri Pattabhirama 
Keddy has also stated that he saw Shri Lawrence 
travelling in the same jeep as himself on the morn- 
ing of May 2, 1976, though he did not speak to 
Shn Lawrence Fernandes, Shri Pattabhiranw 
Reddy has also stated before the Commission that 
his son Konarak/ after he had been released by th/ 
police on May 3, 1976, had told him that he hfi 
seen Shn Lawrence in the custody of the police on 
May 2. -1976. . 

16.5 The complaints of the parents of Blm 
Lawrence Fernandes and the statements of s/Sbri 
Vikrarn Rao and Konarak, establish that Shri 
Lawrence Fernandes was in fact in the custbdy of 
the police from the night of May 1, 1976 aftwards. 
There is no other evidence to disprove tlat fact. 
Failure to produce the inward register maintained 
in the control room for the relevant period in spite 
or the efforts of the Commission to nrocure the 
same from the authorities concerned, assumes signi- 
ficance. The Commission is, thereforeJof the view 
that the statement of Shri Lawrence/that he was 
taken away from his house and kept tfi illegal police 
custody from May 1, 1976, is true,/ ' 

16.6 Shri Lawrence has in his complaint alleged 
that on the night of May 3, 1976, his physical con- 
dition had deteriorated considerably because of the 
po ice torture and some doctor was called by the 
police to examine, him. He has stated that the 
name of the doctor was Dr. Rajgopal 



^ 16.7 Dr. Rajgopal who was examined before the 
Commission, nas stated that he had attended on 
Shri Lawrence on May 3, 1976. Dr. Rajgopal 
has stated mat he was called out at night from his 
house. by some constables attached to the Malles- 
waram Police Station and was asked to accompany 
them to examine a relative of a police officer wno 
was unwell; that he was taken by these constables 
m a closed motor car or a jeep and was ushered 
into a big bunding wnere, in a room, he saw a 
person wearing a "net banian" standing in a 
"bending" position; that he— Or. Rajgopal- -tried 
to ascertain what the matter was with the person 
but the police constables advised him— Dr Raj- 
gopal — not to put questions but only to examine 
the patient; that he accordingly examined the 
patient and found him in severe pain; that the 
patient was also complaining .about pain in his foot; 
that he— Dr. Rajgopal— advised those present to 
geUhe patient ''immediately hospitalised and X-ray- 
ed ; that in the view of Dr. Rajgopal, "injuries 
must have been due to some external violence or 
some such thing" as there was swelling on his body 
and that he suspected fracture of the left lower foot 
and recommended X-ray. Dr. Rajgopal said that 
he saw the same patient at the K. C. General Hos- 
pital on May 13, 1976 and recognised him as the 
same person "whom he had seen about 10 days 
earlier when he was called put by some police cons- 
tables from his house in the night and was shown 
a patient lodged in a room, of a big building; that 
on May 13, 1976 also he was not allowed to ask 
questions to the patient by the police officers who 
had brought him; that he, Dr. Rajgopal, had told 
the police officers that it would not be possible to 
admit him m the hospital unless they brought a 
memo and aslno from the Out Patients Department 
tor bis examination and admission; and that by the 
time Dr. Rafgopaf went out to the OPD and return- 
ed, within about 10 minutes, Shri Lawrence and 
the police party accompanying him had left the 
olace. Dr. Rajgopal stated that he did not know 
he name of the patient until after when he saW the 
ft WS carrying the details of detention of Shri Law- 
rence and his treatment in the K. C. General Hos- 
PJtrt which had appeared in th& papers after the 
emc-gency was lifted. 

16$. No adequate reason is suggested why the 
statenent made before the Commission by Dr 

fSfS 8 * ? 1 ! 1101 be acce P te <*- No evidence has 
S a J u f ( b y the police officers concerned to 

doubt on ,the varacity of Dr. Rajgopal. 

that duimg he time that he was is the custody of 
tHe police at the Malleswaram Police Station; he 

bf $ tW fa^T Ch T Pain in the ear] y ™n- 
nWr^Aflu'- J 9 ,? 6 ' a l ab0Ut 2 a ' m - and ™ com- 
plained to the police about some trouble in breath- 
ing ; that thereupon Inspector Parameshwarappa 
a long with two constables of Malleswaram Police 
Station had taken him to the K. C. General Hospi- 
tal in a taxi; that he was attended to by one 



Dr. Javarappa who prescribed an injuction and some 
tablets; that one nurse Mary gave the injection as 
prescribed. Dr. Javarappa has stated that a patient 
was brought at about 2 a.m. in a wheeled chair 
turned after washing his hands, the police officer 
by name Shri Parameswarappa when he was on 
casualty duty; that the patient who was wearing 
only a "banian", was speaking in a low voice ana 
.complaining of pain in and around the chest; that 
Ue advised the staff nurse to give him some pain- 
relieving injection and advised the officer to" take 
the patient to a physician the next day ; that the 

patient was hardly with him — Dr. Javarappa for 

about 4 to 5 minutes, and that by the lime he re- 
turned after washing his hands, the police officer 
had left the place with the patient. No entry in 
any official records was made by Dr. Javarappa 
about this visit nor did he mention about this fact 
of a patient brought by a police officer under police 
escort in a wheeled chair, without any official note 
and the police party leaving the hospital abruptly 
along with the patient, to any of his senior officers 
on the following day. He has, however, stated that 
a few days after this Dr. Rajgopal had narrated 
to him that he had been taken by the police to a 
far off place where he had examined a patient in- 
volved in the Dynamite case, and that on hearing 
this from Dr. Rajgopal, Dr. Javarappa thought that 
the person who was brought to him on that night 
when he was on casualty duty might have been the 
same person. Dr. Javarappa, however, did not 
identify Shri Lawrence before the Commission. 

16.10 Inspector Parameswarappa of the Malles- 
waram Police Station, while deposing before the 
Commission, stated that he had visited the K C 
General Hospital Casualty Ward on one night in 
May 1976, with his brother who was suffering from 
a heart ailment, and who was complaining of pain 
in the chest when Inspector Parameswarappa had 
returned home late that night. Inspector Parames- 
warappa was not able to give a satisfactory expla- 
nation as to why his brother, who was a heart 
patient, was taken at that time of the night to the 
hospital under police escort and as to why he did 
not think it necessary to get entries made in the 
relevant hospital registers regarding the treatment 
given to his brother for a heart ailment. He has 
denied that he had taken his brother to the hospi- 
tal under police escort. He was not able to explain 
satisfactorily as to why he took away his brother 
m such a great hurry and even before the doctor 
who had gone m to wash his hands, came back He 
was unable to explain why he was in uniform on 
that occasion. Inspector Parameswarappa had also 
not been able to explain why he did not give even 
!,. na , me ° f the Patient, nor did he inform the 
medical officer his relationship with the patient. 
no case papers were prepared in the hospital with 
regard to the visit of his brother; it is indeed sur- 
prising why. if the patient was in fact a heart 
patient, he had chosen to take him away without 
the clearance from the doctor or for that matter 
even without waiting for the doctor to return after 
washing his hands. The doctor had advised the 
patient to be shown to a physician the following 



day. On this point Inspector Parameswarappa 
has stated that he had sent his brother alone and 
he . had not. accompanied him the following day 
to a physician. 

16.11 The Commission has no hesitation in 
disbelieving the story of Inspector Parameshwa- 
rappa. In the view of the Commission, the story 
is false and is invented in an effort to save himself 
and his colleagues from the probable consequences 
of the illegal police detention and torture of Shri 
Lawrence. The cumulative effect of ihe statements 
of Inspector Parameswarappa Leaves no room for 
doubt that they are a tissue of lies. 

16.12 In the light of the evidence of the diffe- 
rent witnesses who had deposed before the Com- 
mission it is established beyond doubt that Shri 
Lawrence was in illegal custody of the police from 
thenight of May 1, 1976 and that he had been 
subjected to physical torture which necessitated 
his examination by two different doctors on two 
different dates : on the nights of the 3rd and the 

. 7th of May, 1976. 

16.13 Shri Lawrence said that he was taken out 
of the Malleswaram Police Station lock up on 
May 9, 1976, and was given a shave by a barber; 
that 'at about 3.30 p.m. : two COD officers who later 
introduced themselves as Shri Visveshwariah, De- 
puty Superintendent of Police and Inspector Rama- 
chandriah put him in a waiting police car with the 
help of two constables and drove him towards 
Yeshwantpur on Bangalore-Bombay National High- 
way; that the officers had also told him that his 
parents had moved the Government both at the 
Centre and the State levels and also at higher police 
level; and that they were taking him to Chitradurga 
to regularise his arfest on May 1, 1976 and deten- 
tion thereafter; that while on their way to Chitra- 
durga m the car, Shri Lawrence saw three Govern- 
ment vehicles proceeding towards Bangalore; the 
first a police van bearing registration No. MYW 
7715 or MYW 1577 and the remaining two were 
State cars, one bearing No. 8510 with a flag mast, 
followed by another State car whose number he did 
not remember. Sighting of a police van by Shri 
Lawrence is corroborated by the information re- 
ceived from the Superintendent of Police, Dharwar, 
who in a wireless message to the Commission has 
stated that a police truck No. MYW 1577 belonging 
to Dharwar District Police was on the move from 
Dharwar to Bangalore, On May 9, 1976, for bring- 
ing new Motor Cycles from Bangalore and that the 
iourney had been duly entered in the log book. 
This is further corroborated by the log book of the 
vehicle MYW 1577. 

16.14 Shri Lawrence has further stated that dur- 
ing this journey the police officers stopped the car 
at four police stations on the way. At a police 
station very near Chitradurga, he learnt from the 
policeman deputed to keep a watch on him that 
a major accident between a lorry and a car had 
taken place on the same day. This constable also 
mentioned that a leading medical, practitioner in the 



District who was driving the car was involved in 
the accident. Shri Lawrence had also 'seen the- 
accident\ This information gathered by Shri 
Lawrence while in custody of the police is confirm- 
ed by the Superintendent of Police, Chitradurga^ 
who has informed the Commission that an accident 
between a motor car and a lorry had taken place 
on May 9, 1976, at about 9.45 a.m. on Hiriyur- 
Chitradurga road. It is also confirmed that the 
motor car was being driven by a doctor who was 
injured in the accident. 

16.15 Shri Lawrence and the police party reach- 
ed Dayangere at about 9.30 p.m., whers according 
to Shri Lawrence, he was taken to Davangere ex- 
■ tension Police Station and lodged in a lock up 
which was full of cockroaches, bugs and mosquitos 
and without adequate ventilation. AU his plead- 
ings and requests for shifting him to the office 
room where he had been initially kept were turned 
down and he was threatened and abused by Shri 
Visveshwariah. Shri Lawrence has further said 
that in the morning of May 10, he was taken out of 
the lock up at 8.30 a.m. and was taken to the office 
room where he was offered some food, and was 
warned by the police officers that he should not 
open his mouth when produced before the Magis- 
trate, otherwise dire consequences could follow. 
Shri Lawrence was taken to a Magistrate at about 
1.30 p.m. and produced before him in his cham- 
ber at about 2.00 p.m. when there was no one 
else in the court room; that he was before the 
Magistrate for about one minute and was asked 
by the Magistrate in the presence of Deputy Super- 
intendent of Police Shri Visveshwariah whether *e 
had anything to say. Shri Lawrence has stated that 
after a brief silence and with tears in his eyes he 
just said "what can I say"? He was then taken* out 
and made to walk back to the police station bare- 
foot in the burning hot sand, 

16.16 The police record shows that Shri Lawrence 
was arrested in Davangere on May 10, 1976 at 
6.00 a.m. at the bus stand in case Nos '49 and' 50 
of 1975 of SBC Railway Station, Bangalore 
These cases pertain to explosions on the railway 
tracks caused by unknown miscreants. The re- 
cords further show that he was produced before 
!a S?S C!ass Ma 8 |strat e» Davangere, on May 

•i? A 976 ' and was re manded to police custodv 
till May 20, 1976. y 

16.17 The story related by the Police Officers 
that Shn Lawrence was arrested on May 10, 1976 
at Davangere at a bus stand bears a clear impress 
of fabrication and untruth. According to the re- 
cords, the two cases Nos. 49-50 of 1975 of SBC 
Railway Station, Bangalore, were under investiga- 
tor, of ShriVittal Naik, Assistant Commissioner 
of Police, City Police, Bangalore, while case No 
37 of 1975 of P. S. Railway Station Arsekeri was 
under investigation by Shri Visveshwariah, Demitv 
Superintendent of Police, COD. Shri M V K 
Raju, Superintendent of Police, COD; Bangalore' 
was supervising the investigation of Shri Visvesh- 
wariah while Shri Srinivasavulu, Deputy 



Commissioner, Law. and Order, was supervising 
the investigation done by Shri- Vittal' Naik. The 
Investigating Officers visited Baroda where 
explosions had, also taken place to make 
enquiries and till April 5, 1976, no link 
had been established between the explosions 
in,. Baroda,' Bihar etc. and "Karnataka as 
mentioned by Shri Vittal Naik in case Diary No 
30 of case crime No. 49/50 of 1975 SBC. Banga- 
lore. No complicity of Shri Lawrence has been 
Shown in any of the case files of the explosion cases 
till April 22, 1976. Shri Visveshwariah, Investi- 
gating Officer oi case No, 37 of 1975 of Railway 
Police Station, Arsekeri, contacted Shri Vikram 
Rao, Correspondent Of the Times of India while 
he- wds iri the custody of the Gujarat State Police 
as one* of the suspects iri tha Baroda Dynamite 
?$&;. He brdiight Shri Vikram Rao in cus- 
tody to .Bangalore fdr irttdrrdgatiori in connec- 
tion with the explosion case's of Kdrriataka The 
statement of Shri Vikrarri Rao is shown to have 
been recorded in the concerned case file by Shri 
Visveshwariah on April 25, 1976, and twice oil 
Apnl 30, 1976, at Bangalore. While these state- 
ments should have been filed with the respective 
case diaries of the relevant dates on which dies- 
were recorded, it is found that all the three state- 
ments were attached to the case diary of April 30 
1976. Further, there is nothing in the detailed 
statement of Shri Vikram Rao dated April 25 
1976, running into 15 pages, to show that Shri 
Lawrence was m any way involved in the Explo- 
• Sl c Ve i L c . as , e -, of Karn ataka. Similarly, the statement 
of Shri Vikram Rao dated April 30, 1976 which 
is also a fairly detailed one, does not disclose any 
complicity of Shri Lawrence in these cases. The 
date of this statement, however, appears to have 
fSS ch ??g ed T ^ om . April 25, 1976 to April 30, 
1976. The Investigating Officer Shri Visvesh- 
wariah could render no explanation for the altera- 
tion of the date of the statement as attached to the 

£Z JS * e 5 n ? e f - two statemen ls another 
short statement dated April 30, 1976 is attached 
which is typed on a typewriter different from the 
one on which the other statements had been typed 
In this statement of Shri Vikram Rao, he is alleged 
to have given out the names of those whom he 
met at Madras and this statement includes the 
name of Shri Lawrence Ferhandes. Here also no 
direct implication of Shri Lawrence Femandes' has 
been shown in the bomb explosions on the rail- 
way tracks im Karnataka. The gist of the state- 
S KSL—. kram Rao bearin S th£ dat e April 

Anri 9? ™™° rP T? rate l in tJ ? e CaSe diar >' dated 
April 25, 1976. .How the gist of the statement 

recorded on April 30, 1976 could find a place in 

^% C - SQ A aT l^ te t Aprn 25 ' 1976 ha * not been 
explained T>y Shri Visveshwariah. 

tnJ^'Jft! V S rai ^ Rao stated tha t he had been 
interrogated by Shri Visveshwariah at Bangalore 
but he had not implicated Shri Lawrence in the 
explosion cases ; and that if any such statement of 

woi£ S l? n JSr°? d f? y the P? lice > such a statement 
would be enurely false. This statement of Shri 
Vikram Rao before the Commission coupled with 



the suspicious circumstances of the gist of his 
statement to the Police appearing in the wrong case 
diary render the version of the police unreliable. 
The object of. the police in manipulating the case 
diary is palpably an. effort to create evidence to 
justify the arrest and detention of Shri Lawrence. 

16.19 The case diary maintained by Shri 
Visveshwariah dated April 30, 1976 contains an 
entry that he deputed his sources and special duty 
staff to search for Shri Lawrence who, as per case 
diary dated April 25, 1976, was believed to be 
involved in the explosion case being investigated by 
him. According to Shri Visveshwariah, Shri 
Lawrence could not be traced and as per the infor- 
mation furnished by his source, Shri Lawrence had 
been absconding from his house since April 30, 
apprehending his arrest. As against this, the Com- 
mission has before it documentary evidence that 
Shri Lawrence was present in Bangalore on April 
27 and May 1, 1976. He had visited the Central 
Jail, Bangalore, on April 27, 1976, to meet his 
brother Shri Michael Fernandes who was a MIS A 
detenu, For this purpose, he had submitted an 
application to the jail authorities under his own 
signature and had obtained permission for inter- 
view. He again visited the Central Jail on May 1, 
1976, for the same purpose in a taxi and this time he 
was accompanied by his brother Shri Alloy ses 
Fernandes and his brother's wife Smt. Lavina 
According to Shri Lawrence, his brother Shri 
Alloyses and his family had reached Bangalore the 
same day and he had gone to the airport in the 
morning to receive them. In the light of this 
evidence, the stand taken by Shri Visveshwariah that 
Shri Lawrence was absconding from his house since 
April 30, 1976, is not acceptable. 

16.20 The circumstances in which Shri 
Lawrence was reported to have been arrested by 
Shri Visveshwariah is a story which is entirely in- 
credible. According to Shri Visveshwariah on 
getting information from his source that Shri 
Lawrence had proceeded towards Hubli side, Shri 
yishveshwariah along with Inspector Ramachand- 
riah^of COD, who could identify. Shri Lawrence 
left Bangalore and arrived at Davangere on the night 
of may 9, 1976 ; that in the morning of 10th, at 
6.00 a.m. when they were on their way to Hubli 
Inspector Ramachandriah was reported to have 
spotted Shn Lawrence at Davangere bus stand: that 
after satisfying themselves about his identity Shri 
Lawrence was taken into custody by these two 
police officers; and that later Shri Lawrence told 
Shn Viveshwanah that he was about to board the 
bus for Hubli when he was arrested. But on 'the 
person of Shn Lawrence no bus ticket for Hubli 
or any other destination was found and there was 
no money with him. The search of Shri Lawrence did 
not yield any spare clothes or the other essentials 
required for daily lite. Shri Visveshwariah was not * 
able to explain how Shri Lawrence could" board the 
bus for Hubli when on the person of Shri Lawrence 
no ticket for the journey and no money for expenses 
or even the minimum personal needs required by a 
person while travelling were found 



the irest i\hri IIJS"* 8 J* the dates following 
t£n nf tlf £ /^ Uwcnce do not give any indict 
tion of the enquiries that should necessarily have 
been conducted about the whereabouts of Shri 
Lawrence between the dates April 3D and May 9 
1976, during which period, according to Lri 

Th?tZT> te WaS **«* tobeaUondlag 
The record does not disclose that Shri Lawrence 

Sh? tT takejl * ? Ven the Urination SSfi by 
Shri Lawrence to the police that he was in Bangalore 
all along does not appear to have been verified bv 
the investigating officer. Shri Lawrence was suspec- 
ted of complicity in a conspiracy case, and such 
an enquiry would be imperative. Shri Vi veshwariah 
m reply to the questions of the Commission Xed 
that no such enquiries were conducted, the Com- 
mission considers this significant omiss on aTa ve^ 
^Kr7r 1Ch lends J tron g corroboration to ?nl 
tfJL 2 h Lawrence Fernandes and is destructive 
hv Shr; v° fy °l arr ^ of Shri Lawrence as narrated 
pnn?wl VlSVe - h , Wanah ' Ab$ence of these elememary 
enquiries reinforces the conclusion mat these 

3 ,r f 16S r re not undert aken because there was no 
need for the same— Shri Lawrence having been IS 
pohce custody from May 1 onwards. 

16,22 Shri Lawrence says that he harl w„ 

searched on May 1, 1976/when he W a S fcroult 

offiS S Th h r^ by W ce offic ^ To the cgS 

Mav 2 ^07* S h \ had aga , in been searched on 
May 2 1976, before he was lodged in the lock 

up at the police station Vayalifcavai; but the ro Sv 

^ tlttf^ WaS . Ie '^ With him * his reque*? 
On the night of May 3, 1975, he was lodged in 
•M^eswaram Police Station at about 11 00 pm 
after h.s mterrogauon in the COD. On this oS 
sion he was again searched and this time eveS hi. 

852 T^ Q away b ? the Sub-Inspector of rbc 
Swrence ° n> ^"^ t0 the Versi0n of S ^ri 

oeais with the arrest of Shri Lawrence on May 10 

ii« . ^ ence was searched after he had 
been remanded to the oohW «tof^,, i .? 

(1) a wrist watch ; 

(2) "t****®** Unsig . ned Ietter da *<* March 
IaIaI ?'• 2™?°*™$ to be from Shri 
Madhu Limaye and addressed' to Smt 
Oandhi; , 

(3) an inland letter dated April 29 1976 

(4) Snrf P^SamS^ ad ^ d * 

iSnRJr the s ^ h - the ~ **«■ 



Sf e on Ma V 10. 19?6, because "this was 
neither necessary nor required under the rul«» 

trate on May 11, 1976, at COD, Bangalore in 
respect of the articles seized from the perlon tfShri 
Lawrence on May 10, 1976, and sentl ^ropcrtv 
to the concerned Magistrate at Bangalore. tKi 

to/SSS 1 * * dat6d May "• 197 67 and showttha 

cnMav iT ^ ,M*S tr -° m Shri La ™ 

^ May lb r4y h nl9 e 76 aV Th g e & '^ 

prepare/by Shri vLeshwariah InM y° fT^ 

^hh^P 1 ^ 21 ^- ^ the signature' ot one ^hri 

§£?i? ° f ^ ?? Lines > B ^galore, as a Panch 

Shri Visveshwanah could, not explain why this 

signature of a Panch was obtained if tihe list 5 

property was not a seizure memo, prepared at the 

oTthrf T r f ° Very °l the . Pretty from P the person 
of Shri Lawrence. Enquiries revealed that no person 
of the name of Shri Subhash was residing af the 
address given m the list, of property Shri 
Visveshwanah could not explain wh/ a proper 
seizure memo, was not prep'ared of the a^des 

aires? 1^5^ ? f S h? ^ Lawrence afteh^ 
J'^-S^Visveshwariah was unable- to explain 
SSy i fJ Lawrence c ame by the two let e« 
addressed to two different person^ by third oartS 
and whether he had made any effort to SStefcS 
relevant circumstances. In short, in the light 3 he 
?, V l e " Ce ° n i rSC ? rd and in *» abse n<=e of afatis? 
PnS c ^ pIanat, ? n , by Shri Visveshwariah, he 

22? S° n 1S i S f th . e opinion thatt ^ story of 
aaest followed by the story of seizure of the four 
items of property seized from the- person of Shri 

sior nC ^°r^ ay - 1 ? iS - a f^y and concocts 
story. The Commission is of the opinion that Shri " 
Lawrence was m th e custody of the police from 
May I onwards and was searched on Mav 1 197fi 

w£hK ' ? is f0 T* 1 arrest was sh ° w n «ii 
with the four items of property purporting to have 
been recovered on his personal search, 

t ,i 6 ' 24 The sejzure of , the rosary from Shri 
Lawrence on May 3, 1976, is a . significan 

c c s : ta ^ he i ^p r T g the fact Qf «S 

custody. The list of property prepared by Shri 
Visveshwanah on May 11, 1976; shovving the items 
allegedly recovered from Shri Lawrenc e g after Ms 
formal arrest does not mention this rosary This 
ends support to the story of Shri Lawrance that 
tne rosary was taken away from him on Mav 3 
1976 while he was in police custody. On being 

w$%P ? angal0re fro ^ ^avangereon^ay" if 
1976, Shri Lawrance was lodged in the lock up a 
;Malleswaram Pohce Station, Bangalore. At that 
time wearmg apparel and other personal items of 
-Shn Lawrence were entered in the Prison Seflrrh 
Register of PS Malleswaram, which also bears the 
signature of Shri Lawrence. The enSy £?fc£ 
register shows that a pair of trouscrs/a shirt, a 
baman and an underwear belonging to 'Shri 

o^Mlv Ce il ha i d 97^ en ^ ? harge «W V*to* 
?« rtT y il 19 7 6 - T^ 1S no niention'of rosary 

L th stateHh a aS °th, In ^ ^ff' Shri Lawre ^ 
nas stated that the rosary could not have been 

mentioned either in the list of property served as 

prepared on May J 1, 1976. or shWo 2 the prise? 



search register on. the same date as the rosary was 
not with him on that date and had been seized from 
him .earlier oft May 3, 1976 at Malleswaram Police 
Station. According to him, the rosary was returned 
to him on or- about June. 3, 1976 for which he had 
made a request" to Shri Vittal Naik who had come 
to leave him at Jhe Central Jail on May 20,. 1976 
on the termination of the Police remand. This 
fact gets corroboration from a- petition of Shri 
Lawrence dated- June 7, 1976, sent by him ; from 
the Central Prison, Bangalore, to , the State 
Government in which he had asked for the return 
of his wrist watch and the purse seized from him 
on May 1, 1976 at COD and had mentioned that 
the rosary, which was taken away from him at the 
Police Station, Malleswaram, had already been 
returned to him about three days ago. A copy of 
this petition was sent to Shri Vittal Naik for his 
comments, and he endorsed that the rosary which 
was at PS Malleswaram had already been returned 
and that there was- no purse with the police. The 
return of the rosary is thus confirmed by Shri Vittal 
Naik whereas the rosary is nowhere shown as 
seized m the police documents. This leads the 
Commission to the conclusion that the rosary had 
been seized from Shri Lawrence earlier during his 
illegal custody at PS Malleswaram and, therefore 
could not be included in the list of property 
prepared by Shri Visveshwariah on May 11 after 
the formal arrest of Shri Lawrence. The rosary 
could also not be entered in the prison search 
register of PS Malleswaram on May 11, 1976 
when Shri Lawrence was lodged there as the rosary 
was not on ms person at that time. The facts 
relating to the rosary, supported by the evidence 
adduced, appear to the Commission as yet another 
very significant and decisive piece of evidence to 
prove that Shn Lawrence was in the custody of the 
police before May 10. In this regard the 
Commission is inclined to accept the statement of 
Shn Lawrence according to which the rosary was 
taken charge of from him on May 3, 1976 at 
Malleswaram Police Station. 

16.25 Shri Lawrence has said that he was taken 
to the Bowring Hospital on May 14, 1976, bv 
Shri Visveshwariah and Inspector Parameswarappa, 
where he was briefly examined by Dr. Gyanchand 
who had prescribed some medicines. This visit to 
the hospital has been denied by the two nolire 
officers. They bave submitted that iffe f£tf Shri 

™ ri^lT** 1 ^ &* takcn t0 the nOSpua 

3L5. I ? P ? ? e V °}^ lock u ? * Malleswaram, 
.where he was being kept on Police remand the 
concerned register of the Police Station should have 
reflected this -particular fact, and thus in the absence 
of any such entry m the register of the Police Station 
Inspector Parameswarappa seemed to suggest thai 
the contention of Shri Lawrence is not correct 
From the Police Sentry Relief Book pf Police Station 
MaUeswaramit appears that there were no inmates 
m the police lock upon the 13th and 14th of May. 
The police officers, including Shri Vittal Naik were 
unable to explain why the register did not *how the 

?S C l^n Shn ' Lawrenc ^ in ** J ock up of Police 
Station Malleswaram on these dates. Theypleaded 
that this, might have been due to omission on the 



paxt of the Police Station staff to make- the neces- 
sary entries. On their own admission the records 
of the Police Station Contain such serious omissions 
that it is difficult to rely on their authenticity 

16.26 That Shri Lawrence could have been taken 
to the hospital on the 14th is suggested by an entry in 
the Bowring Hospital's OPD register containing 
the name of one Shri L. J. Fernandes on May 14, 
1976. The initials as contained in this entry are 
different in so far as the initials of Shri Lawrence 
Fernandes are 'L/vV as against % J.' -entered in the 
register. Even so, the Commission feels that it is 
too much of a coincidence that on the day Shri 
Lawrence is stated to have been taken to Bowring 
Hospital, another Fernandes with initials ( LJ.' 
should have visited the same hospital. Under the 
column 'Age' it has been indicated in the register 
that Shri L. J. Fernandes was of 30 years: Dr. 
Gyanchand has also denied that he examined Shri 
Lawrence on May 14. The Commission refrains 
from coming to any conclusion on this point. 

': 16.27 On expiry of the period of police remand 
on .May 20, 1976,. Shri Lawrence was taken by 
Shri Vittal Naik to the Magistrate's, court in 
Bangalore, where he was remanded to judicial 
custody up to May 28, 1976, Shri Lawrence 
Fernandes stated that he told the Magistrate that 
he had been detained in police custody since May 1, 
1976, and that he had been brutally tortured by the 
COD staff and that he should be admitted to the 
hospital for treatment. The Magistrate has 
however, only recorded in his remand order and 
remand warrant that Shri Lawrancc had complained 
of assault by 'COD people' and that he should, 
therefore, be sent for medical examination and the 
medical report should be sent to the court. This 
fact is also recounted in the case diary dated 
May 20, 1976 of Shri Vittal Naik wherein he has 
also mentioned that he kept the senior officers 
informed of the allegations of Shri Lawrence made 
before the court. Shri Vittal Naik has stated that 
the allegations against the COD were made by 
Shri Lawrence to the court in his presence* and 
that he had informed only Shri SrinivasaviuV 
Dy. Commissioner of Police, regarding the 
allegations of Shri Lawrence and Shri Srinivasavulu 
in turn kept the other senior officers informed. 
Shn Vittal Naik did not conduct any inquiries into 
the allegations of Shri Lawrence although he has 
admitted that he was perturbed by the allegations 
made by Shn Lawrence. He did not protest before 
the court or refute the allegation of Shri Lawrence 
nor did he make any enquiry from Shri Lawrence 
himself m this regard. He admitted that Shri 
Lawrence was in his custody before he was 
produced before the Magistrate on May 20 1976 
but he had not seen if there were any injuries on his 
person. This statement of Shri Vittal Naik when 
viewed in the context of the medical report recorded 
after a medical examination that was done at about 
5.30 p.m., on 20th by two doctors in the iails, casts 
senous doubts on its veracity and credibility. 

,,.„ 16 -28 Shri Srinivasavulu, Deputy Commissioner 
of Police, Law and Order, Bangalore City, lias 



', - m -sam&s^Emissssmm 



confirmed that he received information from Shri 
, Vittal Naik regarding the allegations made by 
Shri Lawrence before the court on May 20, 1976; 
that he passed on the information to Shri Krishna- 
murthy Raju, SP, COD, on the same day; that 
subsequently, he orally inquired from his officers 
regarding the allegations of Shri Lawrence and 
found that, these were not correct; but he did not 
make any record of these enquiries and explanations 
of the officers nor did he prepare any report for the 
senior officers. 

16.29 Shri Krishnamurthy Raju, S. P., Corps of 
Detectives, stated that he was informed by 
Shri Srihivasavulu about the allegations of assault 
made by Shri Lawrence against the COD; that he 
called the available officers concerned with the 
investigation bf the explosion cases and made' oral 
enquiries from them; that he was not sure which of 
the concerned officers were available for enquiries 
at that time; and that these officers denied the 
allegations and he accordingly informed his superior 
officer. Shri Raju admitted that his enquiries were 
oral, no statements were recorded, no explanations 
were called and no written report was prepared. 
He did not make any efforts to contact Shri 
Lawrence in the jail to ascertain more details of the 
assault on him by the COD. Though initially he 
stated that the allegations were not particularly 
serious, on questioning , by the Commission he 
admitted that the, .allegations levelled by Shri 
Lawrence in the court were in fact serious. Even 
so, he did not -make any formal enquiry into the 
matter. 

■' 16.30 Shri Vittal Naik took Shri Lawrence to 
the Central Jail, Bangalore, along with the 
Magistrate's remand order and warrant on May 20, 
1976 and handed him over to the jail authority at 
the jail gate. The allegation of Shri Lawrence that 
he was driven to the condemned prisoners' cell in 
the same jeep in which he had been brought to the 
jail is corroborated by Shri Vittal Naik - and 
Shri , ChablanL ..Senior.. . Supdt. of Central Jail, 
Bangalore. Shri Chablani has also / stated that 
according to the rules, the prisoners are made to 
alight from the vehicles at the jail gate and from 
there they are made to walk to the places of their 
lodging. He has explained the- fact of Shri 
Lawrence being driven to the cell by stating that, 
as informed by his Assistant Sudpt., Shri Lawrence 
resisted being taken into the jail and insisted on 
going to the hospital instead, and that to avoid 
unnecessary commotion in the jail, Shri Lawrence 
was riot made to alight from the vehicle at the jail 
gate but was driven straight to the cell in the same 
jeep. The Commission finds it difficult to accept 
this plea. Firstly, it is difficult to. believe that any 
prisoner who refuses to get down from the vehicle 
at the jail gate for any reason will get the benefit of 
being driven right upto the cell. Secondly, if the 
idea was to avoid commotion in the jail by driving 
him right upto the cell, then Shri Lawrence could 
have again resisted the attempts to persuade him to 
alight at the cell gate and the same commotion 
would have followed within the jail premises. Thus 
the only reason that could have compelled the 
authorities to deviate from the normal rules and 



drive Shri Lawrence right upto the cell gate could 
have been his physical disability and his inability 
to walk from the gate upto "the cell and that his 
physical condition would not be noticed by the other 
inmates of the jail. 

16.31 The story of torture on Shri Lawrence in 
police custody is also borne out by the medical 
examination immediately on his admission to the 
jail on May 20, 1976. Dr. B. M. Narayana, 
District Surgeon, and Visiting Medical Officer of 
the Central Prison, Bangalore, and Dr. Sadashiva 
Reddy, Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Central 
Prison, Bangalore, were summoned by Shri 
Chablani, Senior Sudpt. of Jail on May 20, 1976 to 
come and examine Shri Lawrence immediately. 
It is stated in the examination report that Shri 
Lawrence complained of pain on the dorsum of left 
and right hands, both ankles, dorsum of the left 
foot and cleft of the buttocks near the rectum; he 
also complained of pain in lifting his left shoulder. 
The examination revealed that the dorsum of the 
left hand was tender and the bony protuberance on 
the base of 2nd metacarpal bone and the 
movements of both the wrists were painful. He 
was also found to have swelling and pitting oedema 
on the dorsum of the left foot. The movement of 
the left ankle and left toe were painful and tender. 
There was no swelling or discolouration over the 
buttocks but there was tenderness on the cleft of 
the buttocks near the rectum. Tenderness was also 
found in the movement of the left shoulder. The 
doctors prescribed analgesic drugs t and advised 
further examination by an orthopaedic surgeon and 
a physician. Dr. Narayana has stated that Shri 
Lawrence could not stand up without the support 
of a stick and complained of severe pain when made 
to walk. To him, Shri Lawrence "appeared to be 
physically fearsome" and was in a very emotional 
and highly excited state of mind. Dr. Narayana 
has explained that the pain in the buttocks coupled 
with pain in the movement of other limbs was 
suspected to have been caused due to external 
violence, but there were , no external marks of 
violence on the body. He- explained that external 
marks of beating etc., would disappear in 2-3 or 
4 days, especially the marks of beating on softer 
tissues of the buttocks. (Dr. Narayana explained 
that in his opinibn pitting oedema of the left foot 
could be due to a fracture, and that on that account 
he had advised X-ray and orthopaedic examination 
of Shri Lawrence on May 20, 1976 Dr. Narayana 
stated that he did not ask Shri Lawrence about the 
cause of these injuries nor did Shri Lawrence tell 
him the cause thereof, nor did Dr. Narayana ask 
him whether he had suffered from these injuries 
previously. Dr. Sadashiva Reddy has corroborated 
the statement of Dr. Narayana about the 
examination of Shri Lawrence. 

16.32 Dr. Narayana further stated that he used 
to enquire of Shri Lawrence in' the jail during his 
periodical visits. He learnt that Shri Lawrence was 
being sent 'to Victoria Hospital and also Bowring 
Hospital and Dental Wing for treatment, off and 
on, on the recommendation of Dr. Sadashiva Reddy 
and also other specialists. Dr. Sadashiva Reddy 
while corroborating the statement of Dr. Narayana 



regarding the treatment of Shri Lawrence by 
specialists of various hospitals throughout the period. 
Of his stay in the jail has -further stated that at the 
time of release of Shri Lawrence in March, 1977, 
he had examined him and found that he was still 
limping and used to complain of burning sensation 
during urination. Dr. Gyanchand who was a 
member of the Board of Specialists visiting the 
Bangalore Jail, has stated that on examination of 
Shri Lawrence on August 31, 1976 he had found 
swelling on his left foot and that he was being 
treated for fracture of the 3rd metatarsal bone. He 
attributed the swelling to post infective arthritis and 
gravitational oedema. 

16.33 After his release from jail in March, 1977 
Shri Lawrence was admitted to the All India Institute 
of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, for examination of 
his physical and mental condition. It was found 
that Shri Lawrence had a painful limp on the left 
side and there was painful limitation of movements 
of both hips, left ankle and 'subtaler joints' and 
tenderness along the outer border of the foot and 
oyer the left 5th metatarsal. The medical papers 
giving the details of various injuries etc., prepared 
by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences 
clearly indicate that Shri Lawrence had suffered a 
severe assault and that he needed both mental and 
physical rehabilitation. 

r. jV 5 ' 3 , 4 P r - B ' M - Naf ayana and Dr. Sadashiva 
Reddy had-- advised on May 20, 1976 in the 
presence of Shri Chablani that Shri "Lawrence 
. should be -further examined by a Physician and an 
Orthopaedic Surgeon. The jail records, however 

/SPii t - n0 5uch action was taken by Shri 
Chablani on this advice for an appreciably long 
time Dr Sadashiva Reddy also made an entry 
in the jail medical diary on May 23, 1976 that 
Shri Lawrence should be escorted to the hospital 
for X-ray of left ankle joint, left hand and left 
shoulder to give a definite opinion "as required bv 
the Magistrate". The records show that no action 
was taken by Shri Chablani on this advice either 
In response to a letter dated May 22, 1976 written 
by Shri Chablani to Dr. Narayana regardine the 
examination of Shri Lawrence in connection with 
the medical report asked for by the Magistrate, 
Dr Narayana wrote on May 25, 1976 referring to 
certain aspects of the physical condition of Shri 
Lawrence and suggesting that he stood in need of 
further examination by a physician. Dr. Sadashiva 
Reddy also made an entry in the Jail medical diary 
on May 26, 1976 that Shri Lawrence be examined 
by a physician. On May 27, 1976 he advised 
that Shri Lawrence be examined by an Orthopaedic 
Surgeon. On May 28, 1976 he again recommended 
that Shn Lawrence be sent to the Orthopaedic 
Department of the Victoria Hospital. But instead 
of sending Shri Lawrence to the hospital for X-rav 
as a f vised, Shri Chablani sent a letter on May 26 
1976 to the hospital authorities to send a Physician 
*o examine Shri Lawrence in the jail The 
Physician accordingly visited the jail the next day 
and he also opined that Shri Lawrence should be 
examined by an Orthopaedic Surgeon. Thereafter 
Mm Chablani wrote a letter to the hospital 



authorities on May 28, 1976 to depute an 
Orthopaedic Surgeon to visit the jail for the purpose. 
There is no X-ray equipment in the jail hospital 
and obviously the orthopaedic surgeon's visit to the 
jail could serve little purpose. 

16.35 Dr. Krishnappa, Assistant Orthopaedic 
Surgeon of Victoria Hospital, examined Shri 
Lawrence in jail on May 28, 1976. Dr. KristinaDpa 
has stated that Shri Lawrence complained of pain 
on his left foot and left hand; that he noted that 
there was tenderness over the 5th metatarsal and 
5th metacarpal bones; and suspecting fracture, he 
advised X-ray; he also stated that Shri Lawrence 

had complained to him that he — Shri Lawrence 

had been beaten by lathis on May 1, 1976 and he 
had, therefore, incorporated this also in his written 
report on the examination of Shri Lawrence; that 
according to his recollection, Shri Lawrence had 
told him that the police had beaten him up. He 
confirmed that he had given a written report on 
the examination of Shri Lawrence which bears his 
signature. The report fully supports the testimony 
of Dr. Krishnappa. 

16.36 According to the jail and hospital 
records, Shri Lawrence was taken to the Victoria 
Hospital, Bangalore, on May 29, 1976. Dr. T. R. 
Nagraj, Assistant Orthopaedic Surgeon of the 
Victoria Hospital, who examined Shri Lawrence 
in the hospital on May 29, 1976, stated that Shri' 
Lawrence had complained to him of pain and 
swelling on the left foot and left wrist; that on 
examination, he suspected fractures and, therefore 
advised X-ray of the left foot and left wrist; and 
that later he examined the X-ray film No. 7G34 of 
Shri Lawrence taken on May 29, 1976 and with 
the concurrence of the Radiologist, he expressed- 
the opinion that there was a crack fracture on the 
3rd metatarsal bone of the left foot. Dr. Nagraj 
has further stated that plaster of paris slabs were 
accordingly applied to this region and immobilisation 
was continued along with analgesic. He again 

S^ISSS the same x " ra y No - ? 034 on November 
II, 1977 at the instance of an officer of the 
Commission and he identified the X-ray to be the 
same as had been seen by him earlier. On 
re-examination of this X-ray, he still found that 
there was a hairline crack over the base of the 
3rd metatarsal of the left. foot. Dr. Nagraj 
confirmed that his earlier opinion on the X-ray 
No. 7034 was correct and that he had no reason 
to suspect it to be otherwise. He also stated that 
the swelling on the left foot of Shri Lawrence was 
due to external violence or any type of external 
injuries or a trauma. He opined that a fall could 
have also caused this injury. On examination of 
X-ray, he had found that the fracture was not very 
old but quite fresh— may be less than 10 days old. 

16.37 Dr. T, V. Mariappa, Professor and Head 
of the Department of Orthopaedics, Victoria 
Hospital, Bangalore, stated that he examined Shri 
Lawrence on July 14, 1976 and. also the X-ray of 
his left foot, pelvis and left hand taken on that 
day. He did not find any evidence of fracture in 
these films. He was aware at that time" that an 



* X-ray of -the left foot of Shri Lawrence had earlier 
been taken, on May 29, 1976 and that Dr. Nagraj 
had found that there was a fracture. It was on 
this basis that he mentioned in his written report 
on the examination of the X-ray of July 14, 1976 
that die crack fracture which was earlier seen by 
Dr. Nagraj might have healed by then. He further 
stated that such a healing Was quite possible because 
more than six weeks had elapsed since the day of the 
first X-ray. Even on July \14, 1976, Dr. Mariappa 
found that there was swelling on the left foot of 
Shri Lawrence and, therefore, he advised him to 
wear crepe elastic bandage and take TandriT tablets 
and active exercises. X-ray No. 7034 of the left 
foot of Shri Lawrence taken on May 29, 1976 was 
shown to Dr. Mariappa during the hearing and 
Dr. Mariappa confirmed that he had not seen this 
X-ray earlier and that the examination does create 
a little doubt regarding the 3rd metatarsal base of 
the left foot but he could not say whether there was 
a crack fracture, as a final opinion had to be 
obtained from the Radiologist who examines the 
X-ray with a magnifying lens. He did not rule 
out a crack fracture or a 'linear fracture'. He 
further stated that if Dr. Nagraj, who is a qualified 
Orthopaedic Surgeon, had opined that there was a 
fracture, he would hot disagree with him and would 
accept his advice as correct. 

16.38 Dr. Gyanchand, Professor and Head of 
the Orthopaedics Department, Bangalore Medical 
College, and Bo wring and Lady Curzon Hospital, 
Bangalore, has stated that Shri T. Srinivasavuiu, 
the then DCP, Bangalore, had requested him and 
Dr. Bangappa, Radiologist, to give their opinion 
; on X-ray No. 7034 of Shri Lawrence. On this 
request, he and Dr. Bangappa jointly examined the 
X-ray and gave a written report to the effect 
that there was no fracture seen in X-ray No. 7034. 
Dr. Gyanchand stated that the request lor 
their opinion had been made by 
Srinivasavuiu orally and that he aid not make 
any record of this oral request in the hospital 
records. He knew that Dr. Nagraj and Dr. Mariappa 
were qualified Orthopaedic Surgeons, but he did not 
agree with their opinion that a fracture was disclosed 
in X-ray No, 7034. He stated that he had carried 
the usual visual examination of the X-ray film before 
he gave his opinion. Dr. Gyanchand has further 
stated that he examined X-ray film No. 7034 again 
at the time of giving his ■ statement to the Commis- 
sion's officer on February 17, 1978, and he found 
that there was no fracture on the left foot and he 
saw only "hairline like appearance" at the base of 
3rd metatarsal bone which appeared to be an arte- 
fact and not a fracture. He found a "grave direct 
line" on the base of the 3rd metatarsal bone which 
was held by Dr. Bangappa to be a nail mark on 
the X-ray. Dr. Gyanchand refused to look at the 
X-ray again to give his opinion when requested by 
the Commission during the hearings. His plea was 
that it needed a proper illuminator to see an X-ray 
film. Dr. Bangappa, Professor of Radiology of the 
Bownng Hospital, has corroborated the statement 
of Dr. Gyanchand in material particulars. Both of 
them could not offer any satisfactory explanation as 
to why they expressed their opinion without any 



formal request by the police authorities to that effect 
particularly when the X-ray had already, been 
examined by a qualified Orthopaedic Surgeon of 
another hospital, they also admitted that they did 
not subject the X-ray, film to any special examination. 
The Commission does not find any reason to give 
more weight to the report of Dr. Gyanchand than 
that of Dr. Nagraj. On the other hand, the Com- 
mission is inclined to accept the testimony of Dr. 
Krishnappa and Dr. Nagraj that there was a fracture 
of the left foot of Shri Lawrence since it is corro- 
borated by the attendant symptoms of severe pain, 
swelling, inability to stand without support and' 
inability to walk more than a step or two. 

16.39 Shri Lawrence has also stated that he 
was kept for quite some time in a condemned 
prisoners' cell and although he was a MISA detenu 
from May 22, 1976 onwards, he was not allowed 
to mix with the other MISA detenus. §hri Chablani 
has stated that Shri Lawrence was kept in the 
corridor of the single cell barrack on medical advice. 
Dr. Sadashiva Reddy, while confirming that Shri 
Lawrence was kept in the corridor of the single, cell 
barrack, denied that Shri Lawrence was lodged 
there on medical grounds. There is documentary 
evidence to show that Dr. Sadashiva Reddy had 
advised the Sr. Supdt. of Jail on June 16, 1976 that 
Shri Lawrence should be shifted from the cell pre- 
mises to the barrack as he could then move over 
short distances. He had also advised that thereafter 
food should be supplied to Shri Lawrence in the 
barracks, as Plaster of Paris had been applied to his 
foot. Dr. Sadashiva Reddy has confirmed that the 
single, cell barrack in which Shri - Lawrence - was 
lodged is also .called the condemned prisoners* cell 
barrack and prisoners who are punished for viola- 
tion of jail rules are sometimes lodged there. He 
confirmed that the barrack was not used for lodging 
sick prisoners and stated that Shri Lawrence was 
treated as an indoor patient since May 21, 1976 
but he was not kept in a ward of the hospital and 
was kept' in the single cell barrack. Dr. Sadashiva 
Reddy admitted that there is no provision in the Jail 
Manual to keep" indoor patients in the jail barracks 
outside the hospital. Dr. B. M. Narayana has con- 
firmed that few other cells in this single cell barrack 
were occupied and among the occupants there were 
"some, manageable lunatics" ; and confirmed that 
Shri Lawrence was an indoor patient but had not 
been kept in the hospital premises. He stated that 
this was the practice although there is nothing in the 
Jail Manual in support of such a practice. 

16.40 Even when Shri Lawrence was admitted 
in the jail on the afternoon of May 20, 1976, he 
was in a bad physical condition and the doctors who 
attended on him immediately after his arrival in the 
jail had recommended orthopaedic examination in 
addition to an examination by a physician. On one 
pretext or the other, Shri Chablani evaded the issue 
and did not carry out the advice for the medical 
examination of Shri Lawrence by an orthopaedic 
surgeon till May 28, 1976 and thereby he evaded his 
responsibility to comply with the order of the cdurt 
asking to be supplied a medical report on Shri 
Lawrence after appropriate examination. Even after 



the 29th, when, in fact, he was X-rayed after he had 
been examined by an orthopaedic surgeon on 28th 

r^ n ,°nT h u d l been obtain ed, the medical 
report asked for by the .court was never submitted. 

ZrSLS? * l W f? not abIe to 2 ive a satisfactory 
explanation for this omission on his part. He tried 
to meet this question by suggesting that he did not 
JSSh fe report ^ the court had in the meantime 
closed the case, and referred to an order recorded 
by the court in that behalf. This record of the court 
was altoge her in a 'different context and it related 
to the bail application of Shri Lawrence This 
entry did not dispense with the obligation to submit 
the medical report which had been asked for by 
tte court earher and this entry could certainly not 
be interpreted to mean that the court had cancelled 
rJS ^° rde r- The Commission feels that Shri 
Chablani s explanation is most unsatisfactory and 
evasive, if not actually deceptive. It has also not 
been satisfactorily explained by Shri Chablani why 

?^\?r?T enC ? WaS k ^ pt in the '■«#» ceI1 barrack 
fn 1??J°° m J? c< ? rndor - Even though he stated 
n his defence that it was done on medical advice 
£e statement of Dr. Sadashiva Reddy who was the 

r^lw -"'cu^r 1101 su PP° rt the statement of Shri 
Chablani. Shri Lawrence vtfas kept in the cell 
corridor even after he had been detained under the 
SJFSi from + Mav . 22 >. 197 6 onwards, and was also 
not allowed to mix with other detenus, till June 16 
On the evidence, the conclusion is inevitable that 
Shri Lawrence was a physically disabled man when 
he came into the jail due to the torture and ill treaT 

S^fch y ife ll n% an ? tha x! T ithin the J ail P'em»es 
?t25 Oliablani colluded with the police by delaying 
the orthopaedic examination of Shri Lawrence a! 

£ tt T* 3 ' and also in keeping him away from 
fte other detenus for obvious reasons. The Com- 
mission holds Shri Chablani also responsible for not 

Sfe^St order t of H? court **** *2 

Sr§? -t a medlcal re Port on the physical condition 
of Shri Lawrence. The explanations given by Shri 

CommkL at dlfferent St3fieS of * e hearing of the 
commission are not convincing. 

16.41 Notices under rule 5(2) (a) of the 

toSS^tl^ RuIeS and Su " ™^ 
section SB of the Commissions of Inquirv Act were 

issued to Shri MV.K. Raju, SupeSdent of 

Police, Corps of Detectives, Shri H. S Visvesh 

wariah, Dy.. Superintendent of Pohce Corns of 

SSTiSff Nalk ' ASSiS T tant "^-sioner 
and Shri cK?^ 3 ?^ lector of Police 
■ ? n ? ™ n Chablani, Senior Superintendent of Central 
JaiL Bangalore, in connection with the illegal detcn- 
S rT Ure by ,? 0lice and maltreatment in jai Iof 
omcers except Shri Chablani filed petitions befor? 
this Commission and, submitted tLir conten ?o n 
trough their council orally as wel a In 
writing hat they could not be comtSled 

ubS 32?°? befare . the Amission asTo t o 
£* av,ts con tajning statements Jn ° ° 

defence. These objections were overruled bv the 
Commission.. They, therefore, appeared before the 
Commission and were examined Shri Chablani 
alone among these had filed a written tatemeTin 



10 



response to the notice under .Rule 5(2) (a) of the 
Commission of Inquiry Rules. 

16.42 The Commission has taken into consi- 
deration the statements made by all the four police 
officers and Shri Chablani, and also the affidavits 
tiled by them before the Santosh Commission which 
they had requested should be considered bv this 
Commission. In the light of all these as also the 
evidence brought on record, the Commission sums 
up its findings as follows : 

16.43 Shri Lawrence was in unlawful police 
■custody from May 1, 1976 to May 9, 1976, during 
which period he was assaulted by the police which 
resulted' in severe physical injuries to him For 
this the responsibility is of Shri Vis vesh wariah, 
Dy. Supdt. of Police- and Inspector Parameswarappa 
inis is so because Shri Visveshwariah had taken 
him to Davangere on the 9th where his formal arrest 
was shown on the 10th May. Inspector Parames- 
warappa had taken him to- the hospital on May 7 
iyv6 in the early hours of the morning. "' 

a rreJ f 6 nf 4 ^ r ° m T May 10 0nWards when the **mal 
arrest oi Mm Lawrence was shown and he was 

X t0 SP ! J!* custod ^ hfe was k ept in the 

Malleswaram Police Station which fell within the 
jurisdiction of Shri Vittal Naik, Assistant Commis- 
sioner of Police. Thereafter, he was taken to th- 
nospital by Shri Parameswarappa on May 13 The 
evidence about Shri Lawrence Fernandes's visit to 

it^VK ? ^ ay U is v ague and, therefore, 
the benefit of doubt goes to the police officers. Shri 
Vittal Naik was present at the time that Shri Law- 
rence was produced before the Magistrate on May 20 
at the end of the police remand and Shri Lawrence 
J?m rt am ^A° the Magistrate about assault on 
^^vl/^P^P 16 ' in his Presence; Even 
then Shri Vital Naik took no steps to make purpose- 
ful enquiry although in the days immediately prece- 
ding the complaint he was in supervisory charge of 
■S5 P ° hce J tat ™ where Shri Lawrence had 'been 

xnFti. H fu W ^ under a dut y t0 satisf y Wniself 
and the authorities that Shri Lawrence was not ill 
treated while he was in the custody of the Police 
Mation which came within his jurisdiction. Shri 
waik did not take any concrete, steps in this regard* 
v-« PS? 1 ™ 58 . 10 -"' ther efore, is of the view that Shri 
vittal Naik is as much responsible for all that 
nappened to Shri Lawrence in the police custody and 
he must share responsibility with Shri Visveshwariah 
and Inspector parameswarappa. 

™ * 6 ' 45 ? her f is an as P ect in ^^ case which 
requires pointed comment. This is with regard to 
those case diaries that have been written in connec- 
tion with the investigation of the cases relaS to 
explosions in Karnataka. The relevant diaries a e 
the case diaries Nos 7 to. 23 of Crime Nos. 49-50 
of 1975 under the Explosive Substances Act nnr 

TtheVeaM 97? -""f^ ^^noonL^ 
in the year 1975; and the case diaries Nos. 24 to 
28 and 48 to 58 are intended to be the record of 
investigation conducted in the year 1976 The case 
diary forms on which these diaries are written Mere 
printed only in the year .1977; Obviously these else 



* ^^JraeWSKHEWiMKft-fct-.V 



11 



diaries of the cases investigated in the year 1975 
and. 1970. could not be written in the forms printed 
in March 1977. The inference is inevitable* that 
diaries in their original forms were found 
inconvenient for the purposes of the inquiry by the 
Commission and were rewritten on -the forms printed 
in March 1977. The printing of these case diary 
forms in March 1977 has been testified to by the 
Director of Printing and Stationery, Government oi 
Karnataka. Shri Vittal Naik, when confronted with 
these diaries, admitted that thes^ diaries were not 
prepared at the time that the day to day investiga- 
tions were carried on- in the years 1975 and 1976 
but were actually written only in the year 1977 on. 
the basis of the notes that he used to maintain 
contemporaneously with the investigation. On being 
asked by the commission to produce those notes 
which formed the basis for the writing, of these 
belated case diaries, Shri Vittal Naik pleaded that 
some of those notes had already been destroyed. 
Shri Vittal Naik was not able to give a satisfactory 
explanation either for the late writing of the case 
diaries or for the destruction of the basic notes on 
which these diaries were subsequently written. At 
the first stage of the hearing he. told the Commission 
that he wrote the case diaries on instructions from 
above, following the announcement in 1977 of the 
appointment of the Commission of Inquiry. The 
case diaries produced before the Commission lack 
authenticity since a number of them are not contem- 
poraneous, and cannot be relied upon. Considering 
the importance and the evidentiary value of the case 
diaries in judicial proceedings and the reliance that 
is placed oil them by the courts which deal with the 
guilt or innocence of individuals, the Commission 
has no doubt that the' original diaries were replaced 
by fresh diaries, -and the version, of Shri Vittal Naik 
that he did not initially write the diaries and wrote 
them only when it was necessary to produce them 
■before the Investigating Officer, is a false statement, 

16.46 The Commission deems it necessary to 
-draw the attention of the appropriate authorities to 

the conduct of Shri Vittal Naik which .the Commis- 
sion regards as reprehensible. 

16.47 Shri Krishnamurthy Raju, Superintendent 
of Police, COD, was in charge of the entire opera- 
tions and it was his officers who did. the various 
illegal acts against Shri Lawrence. He in fact, is 
alleged to have ordered them "to start the work" as 
stated by Shri Lawrence before the Commission. 
As the Superintendent in charge of COD, it was his 
responsibility to satisfy himself that the entries in 
the case diary for the different dates during which 
the investigation of the explosion cases was on, were 
factually correct and complete in all respects. It 
has been pointed out in discussing the case diaries 
recorded by Shri Visveshwariah relating to Shri 
Lawrence that Shri Krishnamurthy Raju either did 
not exercise any supervision or had deliberately 
staed over his responsibility with regard to the 
various defects and defaults in the diary. It is 
difficult to appreciate how a Superintendent of 
Police in charge of the Corps of Detectives could 
have failed to get his staff to ascertain the day to 
day movements of Shri Lawrence between the 1st 



and the 10th when it is alleged, Shri Lawrence was 
arrested, especially when the COD staff had come 
to the conclusion on April 30 that he was absconding 
from his house. It is observed that Shri Krishna- 
murthy Raju had deliberately ignored the various 
lapses in the investigation. The Commission is of 
the view that as Superintendent of Police he ought 
to take the full responsibility for everything that 
happened to Shri Lawrence while in his charge and 
on account of the activities of his officers. Even 
when he was told by the Deputy Commissioner of 
Police, Shri Srinivasavulu, about the allegations that 
Shri Lawrence had made before the Magistrate, 
Shri Raju did not take steps to institute a formal 
and factual enquiry. Though he says that he did 
enquire, he admits that it was all verbal enquiry. 
There is nothing on record to support or substantiate 
his contention. This is a grave omission on the 
part of a senior and responsible officer of the rank 
of Superintendent of Police, and more so in the 
context of the complaint made by Shri Lawrence 
before the Magistrate in the presence of Shri Vittal 
Naik that members of the COD had assaulted him. 

16.48 Shri Krishnamurthy Raju's complicity 
comes out in yet another context. If what the police 
officers have asserted before the Commission is true 
with regard to Shri Lawrence being an absconder 
since April 30, 1976, the necessary and natural 
police action that should have followed at the level 
of the Superintendent of Police of the Corps of 
Detectives was to get Shri Lawrence's name included 
in the list of wanted persons published in the 'Crime 
and Occurrence Sheet' of the City Police. What 
was actually published was the fact of Shri Lawrence 
having been reported as a missing person. Presum- 
ably Shri Krishnamurthy Raju did not think it 
necessary to publish any item in the Crime and 
Occurrence Sheet regarding Shri Lawrence being 
an absconder because Shri Lawrence was already in 
custody and no further action was indicated in this 
regard. 

16.49 All the four police officers named above 
are in. the view of the Commission responsible for 
the illegal detention and torture of Shri Lawrence 
Fernandes, the primary responsibility resting squarely 
with Shri Krishnamurthy Raju, Superintendent of 
Police, Corps of Detectives, who was the senionnost 
among them and with whose knowledge and consent 
everything else appears to have taken place. 

16.50 Shri Chablani colluded with the police 
officers in gaining time to let the injuries on the 
person of Shri Lawrence heal by postponing the 
medical examination of Shri Lawrence by an ortho- 
paedic surgeon. He also failed to comply with the 
court's order to submit a medical report on Shri 
Lawrence. This was a deliberate effort on the part 
of Shri Chablani with a view to shield the delinquent 
police officers. Shri Chablani claimed that on 
medical advice he kept Shri Lawrence in the corridor 
of the single cell barrack ; but the Commission feels 
that this was done deliberately with a view to keep 
Shri Lawrence away from the other MISA detenus 
with a view to keep all that happened to Shri 
Lawrence at the hands of the police a secret from 
the fellow detenus. 



12 



U*J * may fee pointed out that this case high- 

hrirts notmjrey^tbe iflegal detention and torture 
of an mdmduai by the police, but the subversion 
ol an entire legal system including tht judicial 
process by senior and responsible Government 
officers. Some of these officials had colluded with 
the pohce officials m an effort to ensure that the 
story of torture and illegal detention of Shri Uw- 
rence Fernandes should be withheld from the public 
Even assuming that the police officers were under 
very severe compulsions to secure the presence of 
ivftn treorge Fernandes as he was suspected by the 
police to be responsible for some of the railway 
accidents due to suspected sabotage, and they may 
%Sd*to&"£? i 5«^*» of Shri Lawrence 
■^-SSJ e M ^ e desu " ed resuIt » still they were not 
justrfied m doing what all they did to Shri Lawence. 
Tpsy resorted to illegal detention and torture and 
2JST3 3f 3 S fi e ? ° f ? efiaI arId Sensible acts, 

SotSii^ pu H ic records > 8 ave f^e 
£7K ° therw *e acted in a manner unbecom- 
mg of the high and responsible offices they held 
The concerned police officers, amongst whom there 

to 'S3? £3 8 f Bter and res P°^Ie officer?, have 
by their conduct set a very poor example to thl 

Sv?,r° f ^ F ° rCe w » they rep^sent 10 By 
ghbly telling lies on oath, they have attempted to 
put a premium on perjury. By their conduct they 
have lowered themselves in the eyes of the public 



generally and the Pohce Force in particular and 
^P^a^*^ t0 : *» ***** 

16.52 Highly placed officers, whether they 
belong to the administrative branch, or the police 
branch are the custodians of the ideals of the Service 
to which they belong. They are leaders ol S 
functioning under them. Since their actions and 
conduct reflect the actions and conduct of the 
Services to which, they belong, they have an indi- 
vidual as well as a collective responsibility and the r 
leadership is good or bad depending upon the 
example they set by their personal and official 
conduct and behaviour. When the leadership o 
the highly placed officers fails, it reflects direcUv 

eS^of 6 ^ they ? present and results in ^ 
SJS 1 of A d,sc y lme and performance of the rank 
and file. Any departure from the highest traditions 
of the class to which they belong, must ThSe 
have a deleterious effect upon the collect ve oerfor 
mance of the Service. Examined in tha ffehT ft 
: conduct of the police officers, as disclosed bv tht 
mvesthjation of the Commission is boS 1 to > kave 
a dark S ppt upon the reputation of the Service as 



■' ^?Kifia3M«?SiSfflB!^ ■&■ '■:#■■ ;.^ =,. i-Mf ^j^ 



CHAPTER XVII 



I. Detention under MISA of Shri Murlidhar Dalmia, 
Chief Adviser of the Technological Institute of 
Textiles, Bhiwani {Haryana) 

17.1 Shri MurHdhar Dalmia son of Shri Ranglal 
Dalmia of Delhi, was the Chief Adviser of the Tech- 
nological Institute of Textiles at Bhiwani, Haryana. 
On November 30, 1975, the District Magistrate, 
Bhiwani, issued the order of detention under Section 
3( 1 ) (a) (ii) of the Maintenance of Internal Security 
ACt, 1971, read with Section 3(2) of the said Act, 
against Shri Dalmia. The detention of Shri M. D. 
Dalmia was ordered on the following grounds :— 

(a) He was a staunch follower of the RSS and 
after the ban oh the organisation, he often 
criticised Smt. Indira Gandhi as well as 
the Government of India. 

(b) On October 16, 1975, he had visitea 
Bhiwani and incited labourers and officers 
of the Technological Institute of Textiles, 
Bhiwani, against the emergency measures of 
the present Government. 

17.2 The evidence led before the Commission, 
however, shows, that Shri M. D. Dalmh was detain- 
ed because of spite against him of Shri Bansi Lai. 
the then Chid Minister of Haryana. Some charges 
on non-existent grounds were fabricated to " bring 
Shri Dalmia within the mischief of the MISA pro- 
visions. 

17.3 Shri Bansi Lai, Chief Minister of Haryana, 
desired that Shri R. C. D. Kaushik, a Brahmin, 
should be removed from the office of Principal. of 
the Technological Institute of Textiles, Bhiwani. 
Shri Dalmia has stated that this peremptory direction 
of Shri Bansi Lai was communicated 'to Shri K. K, 
Birla, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Birla 
Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills, Delhi, and to 
Shri M. D. Dalmia through Shri K. M._ Dabriv/al, a 
businessman of Delhi who was very close to Shri 
Bansi Ial. On receiving Shri Bansi Lai's instruc- 
tion, Shri M. D. Dalmia told Shri Dabriwal, who 
acted as a messenger of Shri Bansi Lai, the difficul- 
ties involved in transferring a highly qualified Princi- 
pal like Shri Kaushik without his consent and in 

violation of the Rules of the Kurukshetra University 
to which T. I. T., Bhiwani was affiliated. 

17.4 Shri M. D. Dalmia has stated before the 
Commission that this non-committal attitude 
exacerbated the annoyance of Shri Bansi Lai. He 
has said that after some time he received another 
message from Shri Bansi Lai again through Shri 
Dabriwal that if the Principal Shri Kaushik was not 
removed frpni the T.I.T., Bhiwarii, by 1,5th of 

S/25 HA/78— 3 



13 



October, 1975, Shri Kaushik would be detained 
under the MISA. This arbitrary and capricious 
directive of Shri Bansi Lai compelled Shri Dalmia 
to give in and agree to Shri Bansi Lai's order to 
remove Shri Kaushik from the post of the Principal 
of the TXT. But the transfer of Shri Kaushik from 
the T.I.T. at that stage did not satisfy Shrr -Bans! 
Lai, and Shri Bansi Lai continued to nurse a grudge 
against him because Shri Bansi Lai felt that Shri 
Dalmia was responsible for the leakage of the news 
that the transfer of Shri Kaushik had taken place 
because of the pressure and intervention of Shri 
Bansi Lai. Sometime in November, 1975, Shri 
Dalmia received another message from Shri Bansi Lai 
again through Shri Dabriwal that the latter was 
"extremely annoyed" with him and was planning to 
detain him under the MISA.- In panic and fear Shri 
M. D. Dalmia approached Shri K. K. Birla, Chair- 
man of the Board of Directors of the Birla Cotton, 
Spinning and Weaving Mills, Delhi, with a request 
to contact and persuade Shri Bansi Lai not to issue 
detention orders under the MISA against htm. 

17.5 Shri R. C. D. Kaushik has corroborated 
Shri Dalmia's version of the events leading to his 
ouster from the Technological Institute of Textiles, 
Bhiwani. He has stated that Shri Dalmia, Chairman 
of" the T.I.T. Conveyed to him Shri Bansi Lai's dis- 
pleasure and the threat held out by Shri. Bansi Lai 
to detain him under the MISA. Because of fear, he 
agreed to quit the Institute and to go wherever he was 
offered a job by the Birla House. He has stated 
that he had also approached Shri Banarsi Dass 
Gupta, the then Minister of Irrigation and Power of 
Haryana Government, and some other friends who 
has access to Shri Bansi Lai, with a request to pre- 
vail upon Shri Bansi Lai to allow him to return to 
the Institute. But he was told by Shri Banarsi Dass 
Gupta that Shri Bansi Lai was totally impervious to 
any such suggestion. 

17.6 Shri K; K. Birla has stated that he came to 
know from Shri Dabriwal and also from Shri M. D. 
Dalmia that Shri Bansi Laj was; contemplating to 
arrest Shri Dalmia under MISA. and the cause of 
Shri Bansi Lai's anger against Shri Dalmia was his 
impression that Shri Dalmia was responsible for 
letting it be known that Shri Kaushik's transfer from 
TJ.T.. Bhiwani was at the instance of Shri Bansi Lai 
In ah attempt to mollify Shri Bansi Lai, Shri Birla 
met him on three or four occasions once in Chandi- 
garh and on other occasions in Delhi and attempted 
to prevail upon him against taking the extreme step 
of issuing MISA detention order against Shri Dalmia. 
Shri Birla stated that during 'these brief meetines 
(duration of each meeting was between 15 to 20 
minutes), he tried to pacify Shri Bansi Lai by telling 
him that Shri Dalmhij a -good man, was one of his 



14 



admirers and hence he should be spared the agony 
of detention under MISA; but these mediatory 
efforts did not succeed, and Shri Bansi Lai refused 
■ to relent. With the object of appeasing the wrath 
of Shri Bansi Lai, the Management of Birla Cotton, 
Spinning and Weaving Mills went to the extent of 
asking Shri M, D. Daimia to tender his resignation. 
Shri M. D, Daimia has described it as "retirement 
from service under duress". 

17.7 The District authorities of Bhiwani passed 
an order for detention of Shri M. D. Daimia on 
November 30, 1975. The detention order was, 
however, based upon trumped-up charges and the 
grounds of detention fail to stand the test of scru- 
tiny. Shri Y. S. Nakai, the then Superintendent of 
Police^ Bhiwani; has stated before the Commission 
that he had received telephonic instruction either 
from the Qiiei Minister's Secretariat or from DIG, 
CID, to initiate steps for the detention of Shri 
Daimia under MISA. He, accordingly, gave guide- 
lines to the District CID Inspector, Shri Parma 
Nand, to prepare a report on the basis of which 
Shri Daimia could be detained under the MISA. 
Shri Nakai has admitted that there were no records 
with the police regarding Shri Dalmia's links with 
RSS or about his anti-Government activities. A 
report against him had to be prepared in view of 
the instruction he had received from "the higher 
authorities". Shri Nakai has further stated that 
during those days of the emergency it was impossi- 
ble for him not to fall in line and disregard the ins- 
tructions received from above. 

17.8 .The District CID Inspector, Shri Parma 
Nand, who prepared the report on the instruction of 
the Superintendent of Police, admitted that the local 
CID did not have any information about the anti- 
Government and the pro-RSS activities of Shri. M. D. 
Daimia and report submitted by him at the instance 
of the SP was completely concocted. He added - 
that SP, Shri Nakai, had told him that the order 
to detain Shri Daimia had come from the higher- 
ups and he explained that by 'higher-up 1 the SP was 
meaning Shri Bansi Lai. Shri Parma Nand admit- 
ted that his report, which deprived a person of his 
liberty, had to be based on "false and concocted 
materials" as detention of Shri Daimia under the 
MTSA would not have been otherwise possible. He 
had no option at that time and refusal on his part 
would have cost him his job. 

17.9 The District Magistrate, Bhiwani, Shri R S 
Verma, received the report of the Superintendent of 
Police on November 30, 1975, and promntlv issued 
orders on the same dav for detention of Shri M D 
Daimia under the MISA. Shri R. S. Verma has 
stated that lie made no effort to satisfy himself on 
the veracity or the adequacy of the grounds of deten- 
tion given to him by the SP and mechanically pass- 
ed the detention order as he knew that this was 
desired bv the State Government. He also ruefully 
admitted that at that time no officer had the courage 
to question any instruction coming from the State 
Government. 



17.10 Though the order against Shri M. D. 
Daimia was passed on November 30, 1975, his 
arrest could not immediately be effected. On 
February 3, 1976, Shri M. D. Daimia filed a petition 
in the Delhi High Court for a writ challenging the 
detention order. The Delhi High Court stayed the 
operation of the Detention Order on the ground that 
it contravened Section 16-A(3) of the MISA. The 
Haryana State Government revoked the detention 
Order, dated 'November 30, 1975, because it suffered 
from technical infirmities and passed a fresh order 
on February 16, 1976/ but this order also could not 
be served because Shri M. D. Daimia amended the 
writ petition after coming to know of the subsequent 
order of detention and the High Court continued 
the stay already granted. Meanwhile, Shri 
Dalmia's relations as well as the seniormost execu- 
tives of the Birla House started making frantic 
efforts at various levels for cancellation of the 
detention order of Shri Daimia. Smt. Anar Devi 

(aged 67 years), Shri M. D. Dalmia's wife, was 
able to obtain an interview with ' Smt. Indira 
Gandhi on April 29, 1976, and requested her to 
intervene in this case and get the detention order 
against her husband cancelled. There was no 
response from Smt. Gandhi. 

17.11 Shri D. P. Mandelia, one of the senior- 
most Executives of the Birla House, has stated that 
he made efforts at various levels for the release of 
Shri Daimia and for this purpose met the then 
Cabinet Ministers of the Government of India like 
Shri Gokhale, Shri Brahmananda Reddy, Shri Y. B. 
Chavan, Shri Jagjivan Ram, Shri K. C. Pant and 
others and requested them to extend their help and 
persuade Shri Bansi Lai to cancel thz detention 
order against Shri Daimia. But, according to him, 
none dared render any help because Shri Bansi 
La] was very powerful in those days. Shri Gokhale 
informed him that he had spoken to Smt. Gandhi 
about the case and she had noted down the parti- 
culars. But ultimately, nothing was done by her 
to set things right. Shri Mandelia has further 
added that he was informed by Shri K. K. Birla that 
Shri Bansi Lai was displeased at his lobbying for 
the release of Shri Daimia and was thinking in terms 
of arresting him. He also received similar messages 
from his friends and relatives advising him to desist 
from helping Shri Daimia. 

17.T2 Shri Daimia had sent an appeal on Decem- 
ber 18. 1975, to the Prime Minister of India in 
which he disowned his association with the political 
parties and requested that his detention order should 
be examined by some impartial authority *■ The 
Mimstry of Home Affairs had asked the Central 
Intelligence Bureau to make an objective assess- 
ment of the political involvement and activities of 
Shri Daimia vis-a-vis RSS and the emergency The 
IB m i its reply to the MHA clearly mentioned that 
&hn Daimia had not come to its notice for partici- 
pation in RSS, BIS, or for any anti-national 
activities. After receiving IB's report, the MHA 
vide its letter, dated March 4, 1976, informed 
Haryana Government that the Central Government 
felt that the detention of Shri M. D. Daimia was 



15 



not justifiable. In spite of it, the Haryana Govern- 
ment took no steps to cancel the detention order. 
Haryana Police also made clumsy efforts to arrest 
Slid Dalmia from the premises of the Delhi High 
Court, despite the stay order, but failed because of 
the protest and intervention of the public present 
there. 

17.13 Subsequently, Shri M, D. DaliruYs writ 
petition against the detention under M1SA had to 
be withdrawn in view of the Supreme Court's deci- 
sion in a Habeas Corpus case tnat no petition for a 
writ against action under the MIS A would be enter- 
tamed by the High Court even if such action was 
arbitrary and maia fide. He then surrendered before . 
the police on May 3, 1976 ; and was transferred to 
Hissar Jail in Haryana. He had to stay in prison 
for one month and 23 days and was then released 
on parole on June 14, 1976. This parole was 
granted to him by the Haryana Government only 
when Shri K. K. Birla met Shri Bansi Lai, who had 
by then become the Union Defence Minister, and 
successfully pleaded with him for granting parole to 
Shri Dalmia. Shri Bansi Lai ultimately relented 
and agreed to grant parole to Shri Dalmia on condi- 
tions that Shri Dalmia would vacate the house that 
he was occupying in the premises of Birla Cotton, 
Spinning & Weaving Mills and that he would be 
away from Delhi for six months. Shri K, K. Birla, 
who negotiated this release of Shri Dalmia on 
parole, could not explain the reasons as to why 
Shri Bansi Lai imposed these two extraordinary 
conditions. Shri Dalmia continued to remain on 
parole from June 14, 1976, till his detention order 
was cancelled in February, 1977, along with deten- 
tion orders of other detenus under MISA. 

17.14 Shri Bansi Lai was served with a notice 
under Rule 5(2) (a) of the Commissions of 
Inquiry (Central) Rules, 1972, and was summoned 
under Section 8B o*f the Commissions of Inquiry 
Act. He appeared before the Commission ■ and 
made a long statement questioning the procedure 
adopted by the Commission for conducting the in- 
quiry and expressed his inability to state anything 
on oath as he was not legally and constitutionally 
bound to do so. On the subject-matter of the cases 
related to him, he did not furnish any information 
to, the Commission. The Commission has preferred 
a complaint under Sections 178/179 of the Indian 
Penal Code against Shri Bansi Lai in the court. 

17.15 This case highlights the highhanded and 
■ arbitrary conduct of the Chief Minister, Shri Bansi 
Lai in Haryana during the emergency. . Once he 
desired that Shri Dalmia should be detained, the ... 
other functionaries in the Government did the rest — ■ 
fabricated records and concocted grounds to justify 
an unjusticiable detention order. The Chief Minis- 
ter employed the authority -and resources of ; the 
Government to wreak his private grudge against a 
citizen in an unprincipled and unscrupulous manner, 
and the courts felt compelled to hold that they had 
np power to grant redress. Shri M. D. Dalmia 
could get no relief save by approaching Shri Bansi 

' Lai through his business associates. The only 



'fault of Shri Dalmia was that he had for some time 
declined to fall in line with the demand of Shri 
Bansi Lai, conveyed to him through the intermedia- 
ries, that the Principal of the. TXT,, Bhiwani should 
be removed from his office because of the personal 
grudge that Shri Bansi Lai nursed against the Princi- 
pal. Once this was accomplished, tnough belatedly, 
he wanted to teach Shri Dalmia a lesson in the 
belief that Shri Dalmia must have been responsible 
for letting known the circumstances under which 
the Principal was removed from his office and the 
identity of the man behind that move. Not all the 
approaches that Shri Dalmia had, with his standing 
and position in the Birla House, could succeed in 
averting his eventual arrest and actual imprison- 
ment. The Cabinet Ministers pleaded their help- 
lessness to do anything against the express wishes 
of Shri Bansi Lai. Not even the Prime Minister 
intervened. The advice of the Home Ministry 
based on the report of the Intelligence Bureau 
pointing out that the detention of Shri Dalmia was 
unjustified, failed to evoke the expected response 
from the Haryana Government. 

17.16 Shri Bansi Lai has not availed himself of 
the opportunity to appear before the Commission 
and explain his conduct, A number of witnesses 
have been examined who have unanimously 
deposed to his highhanded and arbitrary beha- 
viour. There is ho reason for not accepting their 
testimony 

17.17 Shri Bansi Lai, even though he had ceased 
to be the Chief Minister of Haryana and had be- 
come the [Defence Minister in the Government of : 
India, continued to exercise the same authority and " 
power over the affairs of the State of Haryana as 
he had done when he was the Chief Minister. It is " 
not, otherwise, possible to explain why his consent 
alone mattered to get the parole for Shri Dalmia 
and that too contingent on Shri Dalmia fulfilling the 
two conditions stipulated by Shri Bansi Lai. The 
power that Shri Bansi Lai exercised and the manner 
in which he wielded it, would rank him with medi- 
eval despots. Shri Bansi Lai had grossly misused 
his position and abused his authority as the Chief 
Minister in ordering the detention of Shri Dalmia. 
He continued- to abuse his position even after he 
had ceased to be the Chief Minister and become the 
Deience Minister of the Government of India. The 
Commission has not come by even, one circum- 
stance which could be stated in extenuation of the 
arbitrary and unscrupulous conduct of Shri Bansi 
Lai who secured the removal of Shri Kaushik from 
the post of Principal of T.I.T. and incarceration of 
Shri M. D. Dalmia to feed his personal vanity that 
no one could defy his slightest wish and whoever 
had the misfortune to cross his path must suffer 
the consequences. 



II. Detention of Shri M. L. 
pondent of the Tribune , 



Kak, special corres- 



17.18 Shri M. L. Kak, son of Shri Kahshi Nath 
Kak, was posted as the Staff Correspondent of the 



16 



Tribune at Hissar from May, 1967. On June 26, 
1975, Shri Kak was taken into custody and detained 
under an order purported to be passed in exercise of 
authority under Section 3(1) (aK«) of the 
Maintenance of ■ Internal Security Act' 1971 A 
declaration under Section 16A(iii) of 'the M1SA 
was also issued by the District Magistrate, Hissar 
to the effect that the detention- of Shri ,Kak was 
. necessary for effectively dealing with the emergency 
In the grounds of detention served on Shri Kak it 
was mentioned that he, an active member of the 
RSS, was indulging in violent and false propaganda 
against the Government and inciting the general 
public to overthrow the Central and State Govern- 
ments by use of force. Shri Kak was also accused 
of participating in a closed-door meeting of the non- 
CPI Opposition parties at Hissar on June 2S 1975 

10 j Wh 5f h n - Was decided to crea te confusion', panic 
and chaos in the country, which would ultimately 
compel the Prime Minister, Sml. Indira Gandhi to 
step down from her office. 

17.19 Shri Kak's detention was a part of the 
large-scale MlSA detention operations that had 
been mourned all over Haryana on the nieht of 
June 25/26, 1975, at the instance of the Chief 
Minister, Shri Bansi Lai, Shri S. S. Bajwa, Inspector 
General of Police, has stated that on the .night of 
June 25, 1975, he was summoned by Shri S D 
Bhambn, Chief Secretary-curn-Home Secretary" 
^. ve ™ent of Haryana, at the residence of the 
Chief Minister, Shri Bansi Lai, at Chandigarh 
According to Shri Bajwa, the Chief Minister dictat- 
ed to him the name of about 40 persons to be 
detained under MISA and asked him to convey 

P^L U ^^ ' tl }\F S ^ avt s ^rintende ms of 
Police and District Magistrates with the instruction 
that these detentions must be effected before day- 

flr?AT nce of this u n e <^vocal instruction 
or the Uuet Minister, he communicated these names 
along_ with other particulars, to the respective 

Iff r? S-f,"! 5 q l P °! ic ? and District Magistrates. 
Win Bajwa has stated that though he could not 

STrS*? ? + Sh / M ^' Kak ' s na ™ ™ ^eluded rn 
the hst dictated to him by Shri Bansi Lai, he has 

no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the Superin- 

■££*£ His S sa?. ClUded " ** U,t ° f P£rS ° nS t0 be 

17.20 Shri M. L. Kak has explained before the 
Commission the reasons, why Shri Bansi Lai, the 

ht wTf" of ^ yana ' nursed a &*>*& agairS 
torn. He has said that he incurred the dislike of 
Shri Bansi Lai because the latter never appreciated 
his objective reporting and harboured a feeling that 
~t reP sTrf#S? S ^ IUmns ^nsttheUv- 

?oS£3£v ifl ff has c J a . lmed that he was ihe &st 

R?wa\a enL^ ary l na A b T g to light tIle unsavoury 
Riwasa^episode which further infuriated Shri Bansi 

rti hfi hfs also mentioned that Shri Bansi 

Lai had approached the then News Editor of 

trom Hissar. Shri Kak ha s emphaticaliv denied his 
association, whatsoever, with the RSS and reput- 
ed the allegation that he was present in a closed- 
door meeting of the opposition parties on June ^ 



1975, in the office of the BLD at Hissar as a 'big 
lie'. b 

17.21 Shri L. M. Jain, the then District 
Magistrate, Hissar, and Shri Kaiyan Rudra the 
then Superintendent of Police, Hissar, have affirmed 
betore the Commission that Shri Kak's name 
figured in the list of persons, whose names were 
conveyed by IGP on the night of June 25/26 1975 
who were -to be detained under the MISA.'. Shri 

Tc ,'ni a c m , has stated that in the afternoon- of June 

Zo, 1975 he received a telephonic call from the 
Umcjpal Secretary to the then Chief Minister of 

™rs a ' u hr \, s ' K - Misra ' directin s n ™' n « «> 

hvhVh ? qUai ^ and to kee P the telephone 
by his bed-side at night as some important, instruc- 
tion was to be conveyed to him during the nieht 

on June 26, 1975, he went to the police control room 
Rodrf sip S l mcssa ^j and found that Shri Kaiyan 
w U , ,V ?' HlSSar and an ASI of the con ^l room, 
sTri% ? a R y - PreSent th6re - Accord ^ to Shri Jain 
.Miri-S. S. Bajwa, contacted the SSP, Hissar over the 
-radio wireless and directed him to nolo down the 
names of persons, whose detention 'under the MISA 
was desired by the State Government; it was also 
made clear by Shri Bajwa that the order had to be 
carried out before day-break. Shri Jain has deposed 
that ( after receiving IG'« instruction, he had a dis- 
cussion with Shri Rudra, who told him that "he 
would communicate the detailed grounds of deten 
tion in the form of a recommendatory letter shortly 
Put in the meantime on the basis of the rfst of in 
formation regarding the grounds of detention told 
;0 me orahy, he wanted that'a 'detention order ' 
in respect of Shri Kak may be given to him so "hat 
government orders regarding his detention could be 
complied with. 1 acceded to his request" ■ Shri 
Jain has sought to explain that in view of the grave 
situation in the country because of the declaration 
,o emergency, and the mandatory instruction of the 

n,r!L?°r r " mCn ! f £ P™ m Pdy d *uin * number nf 
pet suns he issued the detention order in respect of 
Mn Kak on the oral information conveyed bv the 
SSP without verification. He contended that he did 
not seek to verify the information communicated to 

thi? I ^l ?S* r 2 as he had no reaso11 to believe 
that what Shri Rudra was saying was not true, and 

Jold h^° riC K a i r deni £ d -^ Shri Rudra had ever 
nr % ' s hf °7 °? ainin g the detention order, 
3L at , dnV tl ™ thereafter, that sufficient material for 
detention of Shri M. L. Kak was not available and 
will have to be concocted. 

stmlv\ S *L Kal J m ? Udr S *» then SSP ' Hissar, 
struck a different note. He admitted 'hat there 
were no materials against Shri Kak except that he 
was generally critical of the then Government in 

o ?t£ P n>??\ xf d - that he br0u ^ ht t0 ^ notice 
of the District Magistrate the crucial Tact that suffi- 
cient materials to warrant detenion . under MISA 
against Shri Kak .did not exist. Shri Dudra has said 
that after discussions with the District Magistrate it 
was decided that detention orders would be issn-d 
first and the grounds of detention in the form of a 
recommendatory letter would be sent to him 
subsequently. Shri Rudra also admitted that 



17 



the grounds of detention contained fabricat- 
■ ed materials with regard to Shri Kak's asso- 
ciation with the RSS and his participa- 
tion in the close-door meeting in the office 
of the RLD at Hissar on Sum 25. Shri Rudra has 
further stated that it was impossible for them to 
protest at that time because me IGP had. made it 
clear that these were specific Government instrue- 
tion and 'no deviation was to be' allowed' Accord- 
ing to Shri Rudra, one copy of the grounds of 
■ detention m ail these detention cases was sent 
to the District Magistrate directly and the oner 
copy was sent to the office of the DIG, CID at 
Chandigarh for "vetting". The Public Prosecutor 
Shri Pyare Lai went to Chandigarh with the mate- 
rials and returned next day after getting them' 
■ 'vetted" from the office of the DIG, CID. 

17.23 Shri Rudra* statement before the Commis- 
sion that there were no adverse materials against 
Shri M. L. Kak and the District Magistrate was 
apprised of this fact by him on the night of 
June 25/26, 1975, has been corroborated by tne evi- 
dence of Shri Balbir Singh, the then Deputy Superin- 
tendent of Police, Headquarters, Hissar; of Shri 
Pyare Lai, Public Prosecutor, Hissar and of Shri 
Babu Ram, the then ASl Security posted at Hissar 
Both Shri Balbir Singh and Shri Pyare Lai have 
stated tjiat on receipt of instruction from Shri 
Bajwa, Shri Rudra wanted to know from the Secu- 
rity A SI, Hissar, as to whether there were materials 
■available on police records against Shri Kak and 
Shri Babu Ram, ASl, Security after scrutinising 
the police records, told him that there were no 
materials to justify Shri Kak's detention under 
MIS A and the SSP in turn conveyed this informs 
turn to the District Magistrate. 

17.24 Smt. Shyaraa Kak, wife of Shri M L. 
Kak, had sent a representation on June 27 1976* 
to the then Prime Minister of India 1 , Smt/ Indira 
i Gandhi, requesting for the release of her husband 
on the ground that he had never been ,an active 
RSS and BJS worker. The Government of India 
-referred her representation to the State Govern- 
ment for consideration, but the State Government 
did not agree; to the 'release of Shri M L Kak 
Though Shri Kak had been on parole since 
September 30, 1975, his detention order was 
revoked only on November. 26, 1976 Mean- 
while^ the Ministry of Home Affairs had asked the 
Intelligence Bureau to report on the tenability of 
the detention of Shri Kak and was informed by 
the Bureau that "Shri Kak had not come, to notice : 
for taking part in any activity of BJS arid RSS 
Though he holds pro-BJS leanings, he was not a 
member of any political party before his detention 

■He was. however, a critic of the then Chief 

■Minister of Haryana". 

- 17 - 2 /V n the MHA fiIe dea tfng with the deten- 
tion of Shri Kak, the then Joint Secretary as 1 ) 

f J?rA° te ' " This a PP car s to be. a case of misuse 
of.MISA". - - • 



17.26 In this case, notices under Rule 5(2) {a) 
of the Commissions of Inquiry (Central) Rules as 
well as under Section 8B of the Commissions of 
Inquiry Act were issued to Shri Bansi Lai, the then 
Chief Minister, Haryana and Shri L. M. Jain, the 
then District Magistrate, Hissar. Shri Bansi Lai 
raised^ objections regarding procedures adopted by 
the Commission. He filed no statement under 
Rule 5 (2) (a) of the Commissions of Inquiry 
Rules, and refused to make anv statement on oath. 
A complaint under Sections 178/179 of the Indian 
Penal Code has been forwarded ■ to the Chiel 
Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, against him. 

17.27 In his reply to the notice under Rule 
5(2) (a), Shri L. M. Jain has repeated his earlier 
version and reiterated that he issued the detention 
order against Shri M. L. Kak on the oral version of 
the SSP who told him that there were materials in 
the police records to warrant detention of Shri Kak 
under the provisions of the MISA and subsequently 
sent a written -report. 

17.28 In the "opinion of the Commission, Shri 
Rudra's version seems more truthful and correct 
than that of Shri Jain. Both Shri Jain and Shri 
Rudra have stated that on the fateful dawn of June 
26, they received unequivocal instruction from the 
Chief Minister through IGP, Shri Bajwa, to detain 
a number of persons including Shri M.. L, Kak of 
Hissar District and report compliance bv day-break. 
Both of them knew that the order had to be carried 
out, regardless of availability of adverse materials 
against these persons. It is difficult to believe that 
Shri Rudra would have spoken on the night of 
June 25/26, to Shri Jain' about KSS links of Shri 
M. L. Kak and his participation in the closed- 
door meeting of the opposition parties on June 25, 
when there was nothing on records of the Police 
to show Shri Kak's links with the RSS. Because 
of the illness of Shri Kak, as stated by Shri Rudra, 
it would not have been possible for Shri M. L. 
Kak to have attended any meeting Oil the riight 
of June 25. The grounds of detention were admit- 
' tedly fabricated. This must have been ' known to 
the District Magistrate. For the District Magis- 
trate to take the position before the Commission 
that he was told 1 verbally by the SSP about the 
grounds of detention, which he believed to be true 
and genuine, aiid he based his detention orders on 
the version of the SSP is an attempt to evade his 
responsibility by shifting the blame on to" Shri 
Rudra. ■',.'. 

17.29 The stand taken by Shri L. M. Jain that 
he issued the detention order against Shri JVfc L. 
Kak only after satisfying himself personally about 
the grounds for detention does not appear to be 
consistent with the facts of the situation. It was 
not possible for any detaining authorities to satisfy 
themselves within the short time that was available 
to them for effecting the detentions about the 
genuineness of the grounds, except to' a small extent 
by interrogating the police authorities concerned, 
who were called upon to furnish the grounds for 
detention. Almost all the detaining authorities who 
had appeared before the Commission had accepted 



18 



the fact that they did not make any attempt to 
satisfy themselves because they were left with no 
choice in the matter. But Shri Jain has claimed that 
he performed his duties conscientiously. The orders 
had come 'from the Chief Minister through Shri 
Bajwa and they had to carry them out as expe- 
ditiously as possible. Shri Jain says that he asked 
Shri Rudra, and he was informed by the latter that 
there was information against Shri Kak, and 
genuinely believing that materials existed on the 
police records, he passed an order o'f detention 
after satisfying himself about the necessity and pro- 
priety of detention. The conduct of Shri Jain, 
however, belies that claim. He claims that he made 
oral enquiries and he was orally informed by Shri 
Rudra about the existence of materials against Shri 
Kak. If Shri Jain was conscious. of the require- 
ments, of law, and the nature' of the duty to be 
performed by him, it is surprising that he did not 
make any note in writing about the enquiry made 
by him of Shri "Rudra and the information given to 
him. Shri Jain could have asked Shri Rudra to 
give his statement in writing, or Shri Jain could 
have asked questions orally and recorded the state- 
ments in writing. It could not have taken much 
time. Shri Jain admits that he knew that the State 
Government desired several persons including Shri 
Kak to be detained. He was informed that emer- 
gency had been declared. If he still wanted to per- 
form his duties strictly according to law, there was 
nothing to .prevent him from taking the minimum 
precaution to record the materials on which he was 
satisfied. The Commission has no doubt that the 
story of Shri Jain is false. 

17.30 The Superintendent of Police who fur- 
nished the grounds, had accepted the fact that he 
had concocted the grounds. Shri Jain, in asserting 
that the SP had verbally told him the grounds that 
were available against Shri Kak, which he believed 
to be true, is trying to make himself appear as one 
who had done nothing wrong insofar as his action 
was based on the grounds furnished by the Police 
which he thought to be genuine. Shri L. M. Jain 
knew Shri Kak as a Correspondent of the "Tribune", 
and on his own admission, he had heard nothing 
against him before 2.30 a.m. on the night between 
June 25 and 26 about his prejudicial activities or 
even about his membership of the RSS. Under the 
circumstances, therefore, for him to be faced with 
the type of charges that find mention as grounds for 
detention of Shri Kak as stated by Shri Jain,' and 
for him not to have taken a single step towards 
• ascertaining the genuineness of the charges, appears 
to the Commission a false story invented to explain 
his conduct. 

17.31 The Commission believes that the SSP 
and the District Magistrate decided to detain Shri 
Kak pursuant to the instructions of the IGP and 
thereafter the SSP felt constrained to concoct 
materials which would serve as grounds for deten- 
tion. In his anxiety to save himself, Shri L. M. Jain 
seems to have taken recourse td shifting the responsi- 
bility on the others. The Commission feels that 
this officer who was holding the important office of 



the District Magistrate was a party, under the com- 
pulsion of circumstances prevailing at that time, to 
patently illegal acts, had attempted to shirk his 
responsibility and has in that process invented a 
story, which cannot be accepted. By his unbecoming 
conduct, he has done a disservice to the traditions 
of the Service and the legitimate expectations that 
the people and the Government have in the Service 
to which he belongs. 



III. Harassment and detention of CDR, (Re£d.~) 
Pritam Dutta of Rohtak 

17.32 Commander Pritam Dutta served in the 
Indian Navy in various capacities for 23 years. 
After his retirement from service, he settled down in 
Rohtak and started wholesale liquor business, in 
the name of Messrs. Duttom Enterprises, of which 
he was the sole proprietor. He also obtained whole- 
sale distributionship rights for the State of -Haryana 
of the products of Khoday's, a well-known liquor 
company of Bangalore. Cdr. Dutta was very 
successful in his business. Cdr. Dutta's troubles 
started sometime in 1974, when he declined to allot 
a sub-agency of Khoday's products for Bhiwani and 
the neighbouring districts to one Shri Ram Chander 
of Bhiwani, "who was close to Shri Bansi Lai, Chief 
Minister of Haryana". , - 

mil 7 ' 33 Cdr ' ■ Dutta has stated that sometime in 
1974, Shri Ram Chander of Bhiwani, a milk vendor 
who had started business of dealing in liquor' 
approached him a number of occasions with 
a request for allotting him sub-agency of Khoday's 
products for Bhiwani and adjacent districts. Cdr 
Dutta turned down this request as he considered 
Shri Ram Chander to be unreliable and a dangerous 
man, who can "hit below the belt". This refusal 
according to him, infuriated Shri Ram Chander, who 
threatened Mm and told him emphatically that he 
would somehow get the sub-agency. 

17.34 Shri A. N. Mathur, ex-Deputy Commis- 
sioner Rohtak has stated that sometime during 

Chief Minister, Shri Bansi Lai, intimated him on 
telephone that Cdr. Dutta was an undesirable person 
against whom the Chief Minister had received a 
number of reports. Shri Mathur tried to find out 
irom the Senior Superintendent of Police, Shri 
Mohan if there was anything adverse against Cdr 
a ut i? w d , rece t lved a r eply in the negative. Shri 
AN. Mathur has also mentioned that when Cdr 
JJutta met him in some other connection, he 
apprised him of the Chief Minister's hostile attitude 
towards him and was informed by Cdr. Dutta that 
this had its genesis in his refusal to grant liquor 
dealership to one Shri Ram Chander. Shri Mathur 
advised Cdr. Dutta to tread warily and to be care- 
ful in dealing with people at high places. 

™J1 3 a S dr V Dutta . was a re spectabJe business- 
T%Ti a J eadm | ?tizen of ^htak and a member 
of the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen's Board of 



vjmsxKsmBHWBanra 



WWHSWWSraBSP^flWTHCPr??^- 



19 



District Rohtak. He was sought to be humiliated 
by summary removal of his name from the member- 
ship of the DSS&A Board. Shri N. K. Garg, 
who was posted as the Deputy Commissioner, Roh- 
tak, from December 16, 1974 to August 30, 1975, 
has stated that sometime in the first week of January 
1975, Shri R. C. Mehtani informed him on tele- 
phone that the Chief Minister Shri Bansi Lai was 
'extremely annoyed" with Cdr. Dutta and desired 
that his name should be removed from the member- 
ship of the DSS&A Board. Shri Garg has mentioned 
that though Shri Mehtani assigned no reasons as 
to why the Chief Minister wanted this peremptory 
step to be taken, he carried out the Chief Minister's 
order. In his capacity as the ex-officio President 
of the DSS&A Board, he removed Cdr. Dutta's 
name from the membership of the Board. Shri 
Garg has admitted before the Commission that he 
considered the orders conveyed by Shri Mehtani as. 
orders of the Chief Minister. Shri Garg also availed 
of this occasion to inform Cdr. Dutta of the Chief 
Minister's growing annoyance with him and advised 
him to patch up his differences with the Chief Minis- 
ter and Shri Mehtani. 

17.36 From a perusal of the Constitution of the 
DSS&A Board, it is seen that under clause (5) of 
the Constitution, the President of the Board is 
authorised to remove the name of any member of 
the Board, only when the latter is held guilty of 
improper, scandalous and disloyal conduct. Shri 
Garg has admitted that no improper conduct on the 
part of Cdr. Dutta had ever come to his notice. 
This summary removal of the name of Cdr. Dutta 
from the membership of the Board by the Deputy 
Commissioner at the instance of the Chief Minister 
was not only improper but violative of the Constitu- 
tion of the DSS&A Board. 

17.37 Shri Garg has also deposed that after the 
declaration of the emergency, Shri Mehtani spoke 
to him on the telephone a number of times and 
communicated to him the ..Chief -Minister's desire 
that Cdr. Dutta should be detained under trie 
MISA. He, however, expressed his inability to carry 
out this direction, as after discussion with the Senior 
Superintendent of Police, Shri Mohan, he had found 
that there were no grounds to justify Cdr. Dutta's 
detention under MISA. Shri. Garg feel's that this 
refusal to comply with Shri Bansi Lai's direction 
was responsible for his abrupt transfer from the 
District on August 30, 1975. 

17.38 Efforts were also set afoot to further 
harass Cdr. Dutta and force him out of his 
business. Shri J. K. Duggal, Excise and Taxation 
Commissioner, Haryana, has stated that sometime 
in the first week of November 1075, he was told 
by Shri Sham Chand, the then Minister of Excise 
and Taxation, Haryana, that Shri Bansi Lai had 
desired that a raid should be immediately conducted 
on the business premises of Cdr. Dutta at Rohtak. 
Shri Duggal admitted that though there was no in- 
formation with him of the commission of any 
irregularities or malpractices by Cdr. Dutta, he had 
to suspend his judgment and organise the raid 
because it had been desired by the Chief Minister. 



He, in his turn, directed Shri O.-P. Taneja, Deputy 
Excise and Taxation Commissioner, to conduct the 
raid at Rohtak. Shri Duggal has further stated that 
he did not take the minimum precaution of writing 
down the order of the Minister, because this was 
contrary to the practice prevailing at that time. 

17.39 Shri O. P. Taneja, Deputy Excise and 
Taxation Commissioner, has given the details of 
the raid conducted in the business premises of Cdr. 
Dutta and its aftermath. He has. stated that he was 
asked by Shri J. K. Duggal to organise raids on the 
business premises of Cdr. Dutta at Rohtak because' 
that was desired by the Chief Minister ; and he, in 
turn, without enquiring as to why the raid was to be 
conducted and what irregularities Cdr. Dutta had 
committed, went into action and took steps to 
conduct the raid at Rohtak sometime in the after- 
noon of November 5, 1975. According to Shri 
Taneja, during the raid some minor discrepancies 
like shortage of 19 beer bottles, etc., were detected, 
and he personally took some samples of liquor 
collected from the business premises of Cdr. Dutta 
to the Chemical Examiner's office at Chandigarh for 
analysis and opinion. He also issued a show-cause 
notice to Cdr. Dutta for cancellation of his licence, 
and after receipt of the reply to the show-cause 
notice, on November 24, 1975, passed an order on 
the same day cancelling the licence of Cdr. Dutta. 
Shri Taneja has also admitted that he followed this 
up by issuing instruction on telephone to the Excise 
staff at Rohtak to seal the business premises- of 
Cdr. Dutta, as his licence had been cancelled. 

17.40 Cdr. Dutta has brought to the notice of 
the Commission that his business premises had been 
earlier inspected on more than eighty occasions by 
the Excise staff, but no irregularities had been 
detected during those inspections. But this time 
when the raid was conducted on the instructions of 
the Chief Minister, some irregularities and discre- 
pancies were detected leading to the cancellation 

.of the licence of Cdr. Dutta.: Shri Taneja, it seems, 
acted with alarming expedition in initiating action 
against Cdr. Dutta and in cancelling his licence, 
and inclosing his L-I godown. He organised a 
raid, detected irregularities and himself carried the 
seized liquor to the Chemical Examiner's office. He 
was the sample-taker, sealing agent as well as the 
carrier of the" seized liquor to the Chemical Exa- 
miner's Office and also an arbiter. Shri Taneja 
rejected Cdr. Dutta's plea for a second examination 
by an independent Examiner on the ground that no 
useful purpose would be served by re-testing of the 
sample. No proper search warrant was made out 
and no order in that behalf was recorded. 

17.41 Cdr. Dutta's appeal against the order of 
cancellation of his licence was heard on June 2, 
1977, i.e., 18 months after it was submitted. Shri 
J. K. Duggal, Excise and Taxation Commissioner, 
was not able to offer any satisfactory explanation as 
to why Cdr. Dutta's appeal had been kept unattend- 
ed for such an inordinately long period. In the) 
appeal, the order of cancellation of licence was set 
aside by the appellate, authority as it was considered 
'harsh'. 



20 



. 17.42 On November 19, 1975, Cdr. Dutta was 
detained under Section 3(1) (a) (ii) read with 
Section 3 of the MISA. He had to remain in deten- 
tion till December 19, 1975. In the grounds of 
detention, it was mentioned that he had been inciting 
people to indulge in subversive activities with a view 
to overthrowing the Government through violent 
means, and he had also been holding meetings in 
different areas of Rohtak from November 16 to 18, 
1975, urging the people to collect arms and ammuni- 
tion and- create chaotic conditions in the country. 
Shri S. P, Mittal, who was the Deputy Commissioner, 
Rohtak, from August 31, 1975 to April 20, 1977, 
has stated that Shri Mehtani had informed him on 
a number of occasions that the Chief Minister, Shri 
Bansi Lai was annoyed with Cdr. Dutta and wanted 
the detention of the latter under MISA. Shri Mittal 
has further stated that on November 16, 1975, 
during his visit to Chandigarh he was taken by Shri 
Mehtani to the Chief Minister's office where the 
Chief Minister had in no underlain terms expressed 
his displeasure at the fact- that Cdr. Dutta had not 
yet been detained under MISA by the District 
authorities. Shri Mittal has further stated that the 
following- day, i.e., November 18, 1975, when the 
Chief Minister visited Rohtak, he got the earlier 
instruction regarding the detention of Cdr. Dutta 
again confirmed by the Chief Minister. He took 
this extra precaution as he felt that this was neecssary 
in view of the unusual and extraordinary interest 
that Shri Mehtani was taking in the matter. Shri 
Mittal then discussed the matter with the Senior 
Superintendent of Police, Shri Mohan and both of 
them decided that though there were no adverse 
reports against Cdr, Dutta, they would have to now 
initiate _ steps for his detention because of the 
emphatic verbal orders of the Chief Minister. Shri 
Mittal has admitted that he was aware of the fact 
that Shri Bansi Lai's annoyance against Cdr. Dutta 
stemmed from the latter's refusal to give dealership 
to. Shri Ram Chander of Bhiwani, a person close to 
Shri Bansi Lai. 

17.43 Shri S. H. Mohan, ex-SSP, Rohtak, has 
corroborated the version of the Deputy Commis- 
sioner concerning the events and circumstances 
under which the detention order against Cdr. Dutta 
had to be issued. Shri Mohan has stated that though 
there were no adverse materials whatsoever to 
justify Cdr. Dutta's detention under the MISA, he 
had to personally prepare a report containing fabri- 
cated grounds of detention. Shri Mohan has further 
mentioned that on earlier occasions he had raised 
• objections whenever the question of Cdr. Dutta's 
detention was raised by the successive Deputy Com- 
missioners. But this time, in view of the Chief 
Minister's explicit order, he had to toe the line of 
the Deputy Commissioner and concoct a report. 
Shri Mohan admitted that it was wrong on his part 
to have associated himself with the preparation of 
the report which had landed an innocent man in the 
jail; considering the nature of the times, he felt 
jhat he had to agree with the Deputy Commissioner's 
instruction, as non-compliance on his part would 
tiave upset the Chief Minister. The police as well 
$s the CID records bear out the fact, that there were 
no adverse reports against Cdr. Dutta. 



17.44 The order of detention of Cdr. Dutta was 
confirmed, by the State Government on December 2, 
1975. Shri A. N. Mathur, the then Deputy Secre- 
tary, Home Department, has stated that when the 
detention order of Cdr. Dutta under the MISA 
came up for confirmation, he felt disturbed because 
as the ex-District Magistrate, Rohtak, he knew Cdr. 
Dutta well and he expressed his unhappincss about 
the detention of Celt, Dulla to the Home Secretary, 
Shri M. C. Gupta. He, however, advised him to 
be prudent and not to raise questions over this 
issue, as it had been decided at the highest level. 
Shri Mathur has stated that the highest level meant 
to him the Chief Minister ; and, as such, without 
any further inquiry he unwillingly, and in a mechani- 
cal manner, moved the proposal for the confirmation 
of the order of Cdr. Dutta's detention. 

17.45 Shri M. C. Gupta, the then Home Secre- 
tary, has not, however, accepted Shri Mathur's 
version and stated that he had advised Shri Mathur 
to deal with the case on its merits and on the basis 
of, the records available. Shri Gupta has further 
admitted before the Commission that confirmation of 
the order at the Government level was not preceded 
by any inquiry and the confirmation was done, 
more or less, in a mechanical manner. 

17.46 Shri R. C. Mehtani has categorically 
denied that he had communicated over the telephone 
any message to Shri A. N. Mathur that Cdr. Dutta 
was an undesirable person. Similarly, he also denied 
that he had asked Shri Garg to remove Gdr. Dutta 
from the membership of DSS&A Board or conveyed 
to Shri Mittal the Chief. Minister's instruction— that 
Cdr. Dutta should be detained under the MISA. Shri 
Mehtani could not offer any plausible explanation- 
as to why the three successive District Magistrates oF 
Rohtak, namely, Shri Mathur, Shri Garg and Shri 
Mittal, who had no animus against him, were stating 
before the Commission that it was he, who was con- 
veying to them the various orders reportedly of the 
Chief Minister regarding action to be initiated against 
Cdr. Dutta. Shri Mehtani stated that these officers 
were deliberately trying to make a scapegoat of him. 

17.47 Evidence has been Jed before the Commis- 
sion that in the firm M/s. Ram Chander & Sons, Smt. 
Savitri Devi, Shri Mehtani 's brother-in-law's wife, 
was a partner holding 15 per cent shares. Shri Ram 
Chander was trying to corner the lucrative liquor 
business of Cdr. Dutta, and particularly Khoday's 
prized dealership, which accounted for approxi- 
mately 75 per cent of Cdr. Dutta's business. 
Cdr. Dutta has stated that after his release from 
detention, he was pressurised by the Excise De- 
partment to sell on two occasions Khoday's pro- 
ducts from his Bonded Warehouse to M/s. Ram 
Chander & Sons and to nobody else. After the 
cancellation of Cdr. Dutta's licence, M/s. Ram 
Chander & Sons and M/s. M. M. & Co., Farida- 
bad, started deceiving supplies, from Khoday's. 
The proprietor of M/s. M.'M. & Co., Faridabad 
was Shri Mahinder Kumar, the son-, of Smt. 
Savitri Devi. 



21 



17.48 Counsel far Shri Mehtani strenuously 
contended that Shri Mehtani had only communi- 
cated the Chief Minister Shri Bansi Lai's various 
orders to the District Magistrates ; and he could 
not be held guilty of abetment simply because he 
was close to the . Chief Minister. In respect of 
Cdr. Dutta's detention, he stated that the District 
Magistrate took action only when the Chief Minis- 
ter explicitly told him to detain Cdr. Dutta and 
even then he had got confirmed his earlier instruc- 
tion; The counsel also stressed the point that the 
excise raid was conducted at the instance of the 
then Minister of Excise, and Shri Mehtani was 
in no way responsible for it. 

17.49 On a review of the available evidence, 
the Commission feels that Shri Mehtani, who had 
commenced his career as a Lower Division Clerk 
in the Haryana Government, and had a meteoric 
rise when he became the OSD to the Chief; Minis- 
ter drawing a salary of nearly Rs. 2,300, wielded 
extraordinary influence and authority in the State 
of Haryana. Shri Garg has clearly stated that 
the orders conveyed by Shri Mehtani were con- 
sidered bv him as orders -emanating from the 
Chief Minister. The evidence of Shri Garg, 
Shri Mittal and Shri Mathur clearly establishes 
that Shri Mehtani was frequently pressing them for 
action against Cdr. Dutta; and there is no reason 
to believe that all these responsible officers who 
have had no grudge against Shri Mehtani so that 
they could have conspired to speak against him. 
The facts on record reveal that Shri Mehtani had 

.an interest in the business of the firm,, .M/s. Ram 
Chander & Sons, with which his brother- in-1 a w*s 
wife, Smt. Savitri Devi, was closely connected: He 
would have liked to see that this firm got a chunk 
of Cdr. Dutta 's lucrative liquor business in 
Haryana. When Cdr Dutta's licence was cancelled, 
the immediate beneficiaries were M/s. Ram 
Chander & Sons and M/s. M. M. & Co. t in which 
the relatives of Shri Mehtani were proprietor and 
shareholder. In spite of Shri Mehtam's denial of 
any interest in the business of Cdr. ,Dutta, it -is 
clear on the evidence on record that his relations 
stood to gain by getting Cdr. Dutta into trouble. 
Towards this end, he appears to have grossly 
misused his official position. 

17.50 Shri Mehtani and Shri Bansi Lai weie 
served with notices under Rule 5(2) (a) of trie 
Commissions of Inquirv (Central) Rules and sum- 
•mens under Section 8B of the Commissions of 
Inquiry Act. 

17.51 Shri Bansi Lai appeared on July 3, 1978, 
before the Commission and raised certain objec- 
tions regarding the procedure adopted by the 
Commission and also took the plea that he was 
'not bound legally and constitutionally to make any 
statement before the Commission The Commis- 
sion rejected his contention and directed him to 
take oath and give his version of the case, _but 
he declined to do so. A complaint under Sections 
178 an^ 179 IPC has, therefore, been forwarded 
to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, against 
him by the Commission for refusing to take oath 

S/25 HA/78— 4 



and for refusing to testify on oath before the 
Commission. 

17.52 Shri Mehtani did not submit any detailed 
statement in response to the notice served on him 
under Rule 5 (2) (a) of the Commissions of In- 
quiry (Central) Rules, 1972. In his reply . he, 
however, stated that his statement before the Com- 
mission recorded at the first stage of the Commis- 
sion's hearing should be taken as his statement, 
and had added that he would submit a fresh state- 
ment fr he felt the necessity for doing so after tak- 
ing into account the evidence that would be brought 
on record as a result of the cross-examination. 

17.53 The Commission has taken into account 
the submissions made by Shri Mehtani's 
counsel before the Commission, including the 
written reoresentation submitted to the Commis- 
sion on the subject of the business interest of 
Smt Savitri Devi, wife of the broth er-in-law of 
Shri' Mehtani. in the firm of M/s. Ram Chander 
and Sons. The Commission is satisfied that Shri 
Bansi Lai had issued verbal instructions to the 
District Magistrate, Shri Mittal, to detain Cdr. 
Dutta. Shri Bansi Lai appears to have acted in 
a move to help one Ram Chander, a milk vendor, 
who happened to be very close to him. In addi- 
tion he also acted under the influence of his offi- 
cial 'assistant, Shri Mehtani, who had a direct 
personal interest in promoting the business inte- 
rests of M/s. Ram Chander & Sons. This firm 
was associated with the wife of his brother-in-law, 
who had 15 per cent share in the business con- 
cern of M/s. Ram Chander & Sons. Both Shri 
Mehtani and Shri Bansi Lai appear to have come 
to the conclusion that Cdr. Dutta would not agree 
to give to Shri Ram Chander the sub-dealership 
of Khoday's products without being coerced to 
do so. In the process, they stopped short of 
nothing including the detention of Cdr. Dutta on 
entirely concocted grounds. The District authori- 
ties, DM and SSP, were the creatures of the circum- 
stances who were instrumental in carrying out the 
wishes 'of Shri Bansi Lai apprehending the conse- 
quences that would inevitably have followed if 
thev showed any reluctance to comply with .the 
wishes of Shri Bansi Lai, Cdr. Dutta understaM- 
ably lamented before the Commission about ps 
"gutless administration" that prevailed in the coun- 
try those days when nobodv had the courage to 
protest against the arbitrary decision of a "despotic 
Chief Minister". 

17 54 An innocent citizen, who had given the 
best part of life to the service of the Nation, was 
eot imprisoned and he remained in jail for _ a 
month The irreparable damage to the reputation 
and social standing that Cdr. Dutta has suffered bv 
the vindictive operations of Shri Bansi Lai and 
Shri Mehtani cannot be adequately compensated or 
even atoned for. The Commission is of the view 
that Shri Bansi Lai and Shri Mehtani have grossly 
misused their position and authority, and were res- 
ponsible for the illegal detention under MIS A of £B 
innocent individual for purely personal reasons, 
which nothing to do with the maintenance of public 
order or even the furtherance of the emergency. 



■22 



IV. Detention Under MIS 'A o£ Shri Ishwar Lai, 
Choudhary, District Employment Officer, 
Bhiwani (Haryana) 

17.55 Shri Is war Lai Choudhary, son of Shri Matu 
Ram, while serving as the District Employment 
Officer, Bhiwani, was detained on November 5, 1975 
under clause (a)(ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 
3 of the Maintenance of ■ Internal Security Act, 
. 1971, read with Section 3(2) of the said Act on 
the orders of the District Magistrate, Bhiwani. He 
was lodged in Hissar Jail till his release on April 
7, 1976; 

17.56 In the grounds of detention, it was men- 
tioned that Shri Ishwar Lai Choudhary was trying 
to create "disaffection towards the lawful authority 
Of the Government by utterances that the present 
regime was indulging in favouritism, nepotism and 
corruption" and urging people to unite to over- 
throw such a Government. He was also accused 
of inciting the people to burn Government build- 
ings, stone buses and stop the movement of trains, 
so that anarchic conditions are created and adminis- 
tration in the country is paralysed. 

17.57 Shri Ishwar Lai Choudhary has stated 
that as the District Employment Officer^ Bhiwani, 
he incurred the displeasure of Shri Surinder Singh' '' 
son,, of Shri Bansi Lai, the then Chief Minister,' 
and Shri Mahabir Parshad, Political Secretary of 
the Chief Minister, for his refusal to comply with 
their irregular requests. Shri Surinder Singh tried 
to pressurise him to include the names of his nomi- 
nees in the lists of candidates forwarded from the 
Employment Exchange to the employers. Shri 
Choudhary stated that whenever possible, he tried 
to accommodate the nominees of Shri Surinder 
Smgh within the framework of the rules. But on 
certain occasions, when the nominees did not 
possess the requisite qualifications, he had to reluc- 
tantly express his inability to help them This 
correct attitude on his part, according to him had 
antagonised Shri Surinder Singh, who, on a num- 
ber of occasions, had threatened Shri Choudharv 
with dire consequences. 

17.58 Shri Choudhary has further stated that on 
SH^ 5' 197 T 5 ' "Received a message through 
Shn Manohar Lai, Deputy Superintendent of 
Police asking him to meet the Chief Minister Shri 
Bansi Lai who had come to Bhiwani on tour, at 

w a tn W tt B ^ a ?\? Si - den f • Shri Choudhary 
went to the Chief Minister's residence, where a 
number of other District functionaries as well as 

53P 1 ???- — the pubHc were P re sent. There the 
Chief ^mister, m the presence of others, accused 
•Shn Choudhary of registering names of the peonl- 
of Rohtak District in the Bhiwani Emnloymen 
Exchange, and without giving Shri Choudharv anv 
oDDortunity to exolam his conduct, ordered his 
detention under MISA. In accordance with the 

arrested bv the police and taken-to the City PrTk* 
Statzon, where he was served with the detention 



order issued by the District Magistrate. He was 
subsequently taken to the District Jail, Hissar. . ',' 

17.59 Shri R. S. Verma, District Magistrate, 

Bhiwani, has corroborated the version of Shri 
Choudhary regarding the unusual circumstances 
and manner of his arrest. Shri Verma has stated 
that on November 5, 1975, he was present at the 
Chief Minister's residence when Shri Bansi Lai in 
a huff ordered, in the presence of all, the detention 
of Shri Choudhary under MISA on the charge that 
the latter was recruiting in Bhiwani only men from 
Rohtak District. He was also directed by the Chief 
Minister to enquire into and find out the number 
of people who had been registered in Bhiwani 
Employment Exchange with C/o addresses in viola- 
tion of the Government policy on the matter. Shri 
Verma has stated that as the order a'i detention 
of Shri Choudhary under MISA had " originated 
directly from the Chief Minister, he had no other 
option but to communicate the order of the Chief 
Minister^ to the Superintendent of Police for neces- 
sary action. The question of satisfaction before 
issuance of the detention order, therefpre, did not 
arise, Shri Verma has frankly admitted that he 
lacked courage to resist the Chief Minister, Shri 
Bansi Lai, who had ordered the detention of Shri 
Choudhary. Shri Choudhary, according to Shri 
R. S. Verma, was an honest and straightforward 
officer, against whom he had received no comp- 
laints o'f commission of irregularities prior to this 
incident. In the monthly meetings of the District 
Public Relations and Grievances Committee, no- 
body had levelled any allegation against the District 
Employment Officer. Shri Verma has stated that 
he learnt later on that Shri Surinder Singh who 
harboured a grudge against Shri Choudhary, was 
instrumental in influencing Shri Bansi Lai to issue 
this arbitrary and unjust order. When Shri Banarsi 
Dass Gupta assumed the office of Chief Minister 
of Haryana, Shri Verma interceded with Shri 
Banarsi Dass Gupta for the release of Shri Ishwar 
Lai Choudhary, as he felt that grave injustice had 
been done to an upright officer. 



17.60 Shri Y. S. Nakai, former SSP Bhiwani 
has narrated the circumstances under which he had 
to initiate steps for preparing: a report to justify 
the detention of Shri Choudhary under the MISA 
He has stated that on November 5, 1975, he was 
present at Charkhi Dadri to supervise the arrange- 
ments for a public meeting to be addressed by the 
Chief Minister. Thereat Charkhi Dadri, the 
District Magistrate had communicated to him the 
order of Shri Bansi Lai for the detention of Shri 
Ishwar Lai Choudhary. This clinched the issue 
Though there was nothing on record against Shri 
Choudhary, he had, in view of the Chief Minister's 
clear directive, to ask the District CID Inspector 
Shn Parma Nand, to prepare a report to make possi- 
ble Shn Choudhary's detention under MISA He 
knew that the report submitted by the TnsDector was 
a fabricated one, but because of the comoelline 
circumstances he had to forward it to the District 
Magistrate. 



23 



iaaa M BB ra aB B Baaa 8 



17.61. The CID Inspector, Shri Parma Nand 
has admitted that the note prepared by him on the 
explicit instruction of the Superintendent of police 
was totally concocted, containing "trumped-up 
charges" against an officer enjoying a very good re- 
putation. According to Shri Parma Nand, the 
real reason behind Shri Choudhary's detention was 
Shri Surinder Singh's hostility towards Shri Chou- 
dhary because of the latter's refusal to comply with 
the irregular requests of Shri Surinder Singh in the 
matter of forwarding the names of his candidates. 
When specifically asked by the Commission as to 
what would have happened if he declined to be a 
party to this 'frame-up, Shri Parma Nand stated 
.that in that even his fate would have been similar 
to that of Shri Choudhary. 

17.62 Shri Choudhary was reputed to be a fair 
and straightforward officer and no complaint of 
commission of irregularities against him had come 
to the notice of his departmental superiors. Shri 
P;. N. Bhandari, Joint Director of Employment, 
Government of Haryana, has stated that Shri 
Choudhary had not contravened any departmental 
rules and' instructions, and his detention for alleged 
nepotism and irregularities was improper and entirely 
undeserved. Shri Bhandari has explained that the 
instruction issued by the Haryana Government 
against registering in employment exchange, people 
with. C/o addresses, was to prevent people hailing 
from places outside Haryana from registering them- 
selves at Employment Exchanges in Haryana State, 
and there was no ban on unemployed persons of 
' Haryana State from registering their names in the 
Employment Exchanges within the State. Shri 
Bhandari felt that if Shri Choudhary was indulging 
in acts of nepotism and favouritism, he could have 
been . properly dealt with under the Civil Service 
Rules without invoking the provisions of the MISA. 

1*7.63 Shri B. D. Gupta, former Chief Minister, 
Haryana has deposed that sometime in November, 
1975 he was present at Bhiwani (he was then 
Irrigation and Power Minister) with Shri Bans! 
Lai, when the latter in great exasperation ordered 
in the presence of others, the detention of Shri 
Ishwar Lai Choudhary under MISA. He came to 
know from Shri Bansi Lai that Shri Surinder Singh 
had complained against this District Employment 
Officer for registering the names of people from out- 
side the district in the District Employment 
Exchange. Shri Gupta has mentioned that he had 
tried to intervene in favour of the officer, as he felt 
that the proposed punishment was unjust and 
exceptionally harsh. But Shri Bansi Lai remained 
adamant and refused to heed to any suggestion. He 
further stated that later on wheri he became Chief 
Minister, he received representations from the 
relatives of Shri Choudhary praying for his release, 
and taking into consideration the fact that grave 
injustice has been done to this officer, he ordered 
his release. He was also told by the District 
Magistrate that Shri Choudhary was the victim of 
flagrant injustice. 

17,64 Shri Bansi Lai was served with a notice 
under Rule 5(2) (a) of the Commissions of Inquiry 



(Central) Rules, 1972, and was summoned under 
Section 8B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act. 
He appeared before the Commission and made a 
long statement questioning the procedure adopted 
by the Commission for conducting the inquiry and 
expressed his inability to state anything on oath 
as he was not legally and ^constitutionally bound to 
do so. On the subject-matter of the cases related 
to him, he did not furnish any information to the 
Commission. The Commission has preferred a 
complaint under Sections 178/179 of the Indian 
Penal Code against Shri Bansi Lai in the court of 
the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, for , 
refusing to take oath and give evidence on oath. 

17.65 This case unfolds a sordid tale of gross 
abuse of power and misuse of authority. The mani- 
festly wrong and illegal' detention of Shri Ishwar 
Lai Chaudhary illustrates Shri Bansi Lai's capricious 
and highly arbitrary style of administration. A 
straightforward and honest officer performing his 
duties according to rules was detained, because 'he 
failed to comply with the irregular requests of Shri 
Surinder Singh, son of Shri Bansi Lai. The district 
authorities in their turn meekly and unquestioningty 
carried out the order of detention of an officer 
against whom there was nothing on record. The 
provisions of MISA were misused in a. blatant 
manner because Shri Bansi Lai wanted it^ 

V. Harassment and Detention under MISA of Shri 
Pit amber Lai Goyal 

17.66 Shri Pitambar Lai Goyal, son of Shri Ram 
Partap of village Bapora, District Bhiwani, Haryana, 
.after a brilliant academic career, started practising 
as an Advocate in the courts of Bhiwani District. 
It has been complained before the Commission that 
Shri Pitambar Goyal, his father, grandfather and 
uncle were the victims during the emergency of 
relentless vendetta of Shri Bansi Lai, the Chief 
Minister of Haryana. The entire family was subv 
jected to a sustained campaign of victimisation. 
Shri Goyal has given the background of the rivalry 
between his family and that of Shri Bansi Lai and 
has stated that the members of his family had sup- 
ported in the Vidhan Sabha Elections in 1962, Shri 
Devi Lai who as an independent candidate had 
contested against Shri Bansi Lai from the Tosham 
constituency," and that in the local Bar Council 
elections at Bhiwani he along with some other 
lawyers had opposed the candidature of Shri 
Surinder Singh, son of Shri Bansi Lai for the post 
of the President of the District Bar. This turned 
Shri Surinder Singh into a bitter enemy of Shri 
Pitambar Lai Goyal. 

17.67 Shri Banarsi Dass Gupta > former Chief 
Minister of Haryana, who also hails from Bhiwani, 
has corroborated the version of Shri Goyal regarding 
the strained relations between the families of Shri 
Goyal and Shri Bansi Lai for a variety of reasons 
like the support rendered by Shri Mangat Ram, 
grandfather of Shri Goyal, to Shri Devi Lai against 
Shri Bansi Lai in Assembly Elections ^ the personal 
hostility of Shri Surinder Singh towards Shri Uoyal 
and the smear campaign of Shri Devi Parsanna, a 
confidant of Shri Bansi Lai, against the Goyal family. 



24' 



17.68 In 1973, Shri Pitambar Coyal appeared in 
the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial) Examination 
and stood sixth in the order of merit. A Medical 
Board consisting of Chief Medical Officer, Rohtak, as 
President, and two other doctors, Dr. S. K. Mahajan, 
Assistant Professor, Medicines, and Dr.B. S. 
Chauhan, Assistant Professor of Ophthalmology of 
Medical College, Rohtak, was constituted by the 
State Government for the medical examination of the 
selected candidates on June 6, 1975 at Rohtak. 
Shri. Bansi Lai' wanted to prevent Shri Goyal from 
entering the service and so covert efforts were made 
at his instance to declare Shri Goyal unfit for 
selection. Dr. P. R. Sondhi, Director, Health 
Services, Haryana has stated that sometime in May/ 
June, 1975, he was summoned by the Chief Minister, 
Shri Bansi Lai, and was told that Shri Goyal, who 
was to appear before the Medical Board, should be 
declared unfit. Dr. Sondhi has said that he was 
hesitant to comply with this direction of the Chief 
Minister, but he was told in no uncertain terms that 
steps should be taken to get Shri Goyal medically 
disqualified. According to Dr. Sondhi, he visited 
Rohtak around June 10, 1975, after the Medical 
Board had already examined Shri Goyal and declared 
him fit. He, thereupon, enquired from Dr A C 
Jam, ' Chief Medical Officer, if the two other 
specialists were willing to carry out the desire of the 
Chief Minster and he was told that they would not 
agree to that suggestion. Dr. Sondhi has further 
stated that cm his return to Chandigarh, he informed 
the Chief Minister that the Medical Board had 
already declared^hri Goyal fit and that nothin* 
further could be done. The Chief Minister appeared 

f"5JS P Q r 7, S0 , nd ^ has J^her disclosed that 
3 November 1975, during the CMOs' Conference 

Forn W 1K?V^ t Jam ^ ed Ilim the Medical 
*-orm of Shri Goyal containing some alterations 
and mentioned that the candidate had been referred 
to a second Medical Board for final opinion, because 
S5J5- 8 £ uffen n£l rom chronic cpididimylis Dr 

atth,i^l? d *"* £ e 6Xpressed his happiness 
at these alterations or the medical report and advised 
Dr Jain to get the "cuttings" (alterations) initialled 
by the <wo other specialists. He was told by Dr 

Jw ? a j ?7 Wei ? not * a& W to d0 so. Dr. Sondhi 
admitted before the Commission that what Dr Ja in 



did, was against medical ethics ant! amounted to 
falsification of official records. 

17.69 Dr. Mahajan and Dr. Chauhan have both 
deposed that there were no "cuttings" etc. in the 
Medical Report Form of Shri Goyal when they had 
signed it. According to Dr. Chauhan, the members 
of the Board are specialists, who examine the candi- 
dates in respect of their own specialities and record 
their findings in the appropriate columns meant for 
them. 

17.70 Dr. A. C. Jain, CMO, Rohtak, disowned 
some portions of the earlier statement given by him 
before the Investigating Officer of the Commission, 
and said that he could not muster courage earlier 
and give a true statement because of the fear of the 
head of the department, Dr. Sondhi. According to 
Dr. Jain, Dr. Sondhi had earlier apprised him of 
the desire of the Chief Minister that Shri Goyal - 
should be declared medically unfit, but notwith- 
standing this direction, he acted according to his 
conscience and the Board declared Shri Goyal fit. 
Dr. Jain has mentioned that on two occasions during 
the month of June, 1975, he. was called to Chandi- 
garh from Ambala, where he was availing of his 
leave and was "pressurised" by Dr. Sondhi, who was 
close to Shri Bansi Lai, to make some alterations in 
the report. 

t 17.71 Dr. Jain has further said that he argued 
with Dr. Sondhi and pointed out that it would not 
be correct, as well as risky, on his part to write 
adverse remarks in the report regarding subjects 
pertaining to the other Specialists of the Board 
Thereafter, according to Dr. Jain, the remarks 
pertaining to the other specialists were struck off 
and it was pointed out in the report that the candi- 
date was suffering from chronic epididimvtis and 
should be referred to a second Medical Board. 

17.72 The medical report on Shri Goyal con- 
taining adverse remarks was sent to the Central 
.rorerisic Science Laboratory (CFSL) for 
examination and opinion by the investigating staff of 
ttte Commission. According to the expert's, opinion 

a ,L° ng !7 al w i ltm fin obliterated entries, when 
deciphered, read as follows :— 



Sr. 
No. 



Obliterated entry marked (a) 



'RESULT OF EXAMINATION 
Against Column 



1. Ql 

i 

2. Q2 

3. Q3 
A . 04 



llif™ V edlcaI Report " Is there any evi- 
S^f a s ? vere degree of hydrocele, 
vencocele, varicose veins, Haemorrhoids? 

hjL 7 7 S therean y evidence of disease of the 
digestive organs? 

^S?L17 S there ? ny eviden <=e of disease of 
the genital organs? 

COl J,™ r ii ficate of /L nes s. "°r has already 
been small pox and shows variou s scars . 



Deciphered original 
writing 



Subsequent writing ? 



"Internal Piles p" 

"Liver Just palpable ' ' 
"No" 



j^»n*y No. 1 ana 2 wm 5utseq|lmtly ^ fc ^ ^ ^ _ ^^ ^ ^ 

(B^.l ffi d 2havta£ta scored om;the Mm ^ gT wa . gonyErted , mo • 



"Chairman's abnormal 
findings : — 

1. Liver just palpable 

2. Internal Haemorrhoids p 

3. Chronic Epididymitis Right Side." 
3 was altered-into entry No. 1." 



Nil : Original writings 
scored out. 

Nil : Original writings 
scored out. 

"Chronic Epididymitis 
Right side" 



25 



17.73 It is evident that Dr. Jain initially had 
made an entry in Column 17 in respect of matters 
not within his speciality and later on scored it out ; 
but in column 20, he subsequently made an entry 
regarding 'chronic epididimytis', whereas earlier he 
bad- written 'No 1 against this column. 



17.74 Efforts were also afoot to prevent by 
other means Shri Goyal from joining the service. 
Shri Harnam Singh, Station House Officer, Police 
Station, Sadar, Bhiwani, stated before the Commis- 
sion that he was categorically directed by Shri R. S. 
Verma, District Magistrate, Bhiwani, to give an 
adverse verification report to prevent Shri Goyal 
from joining the service. Shri Harnam Singh has 
said that he prepared his verification report on the 
basis of the statements received by him from three, 
respectable villagers in which they had mentioned 
that Shri Goyal was indulging in anti-Government 
activities. and had a naxalite bent of mind. Accor- 
dingly, he noted in his verification report that Shri 
Goyal was not fit for Government service. 



17.75 The District Magistrate, Shri R. S. 
Verma, has denied that he had asked Shri Harnam 
Singh to give an adverse verification report against 
Shri Goyal, and added that Shri Harnam Singh 
was making this kind of statement before the Com- 
mission for "covering his own misdeeds". Shri 
Verma produced before the Commission the note 
recorded by Shri Harnam Singh as early as in 1974 
in the Confidential Register maintained in the Police 
Station to the effect that Shri Goyal was a constant 
critic of the Government and had a naxalite bent of 
mind. In this connection, Shri Y. S. Nakai, Sr. 
Superintendent of Police, has stated that Shri 
Harnam Singh never told him about the District 
Magistrate's special instruction to him regarding 
the preparation of an adverse verification report 
against Shri Pitambar Goyal. Shri Harnam Singh, 
SHO, however, maintained that the District Magis^ 
trate had summoned him directly and asked him to 
send the adverse verification report against Shri 
Pitambar Goyal. 



17.76 Immediately after the proclamation of the 
emergency, order for detention of Shri Goyal under 
the MISA was issued by the District Magistrate, 
Bhiwani. Both Shri R. S. Verma, the District 
Magistrate, and Shri Y. S. Nakai, the SSP; have 
stated that on the night of June 25/26, 1975, Shri 
Bajwa, IGP contacted, them on radio wireless and 
communicated to them the names of a number of 
persons of Bhiwani, including Shri Pitambar Lai 
Goyal, who were to be detained under MISA. In 
pursuance of the instruction of the IGP, Shri Nakai 
sent a report to the District Magistrate in which 
it was stated that on June 24, 1975, Shri Goyal was 
seen indulging in anti- Government activities and. 
inciting the people of village Bapora to participate 
in acts of subversion and sabotage. Shri Nakai has 
admitted that tbere were no materials available 
against Shri Goyal, but he had fabricated the report 



against Shri Goyal in view of the clear instruction 
of the State Government. 



17.77 Shri R, S. Verma, the District Magistrate, 
has admitted that he signed the detention order on 
the morning of June 26, when there was before him 
no material whatsoever against Shri Goyal, and he 
had no option but to issue the order without satis- 
fying himself regarding the adequacy and veracity of 
the grounds of detention. 

17.78 The order of detention against Shri Goyal 
was not served as he could not be immediately traced 
out by the police. On July 13, 1975, Shri Pitambar 
Lai Goyal surrendered himself before the SSP, 
Bhiwani, when he came to know that his grand- 
father, father and uncle had been kdpt confined at 
the Police Station Sadar. Shri Mangat Ram, Shri 
Ram Partap and Shri Ram Niwas, grandfather, 
father and uncle of Shri Goyal have stated that they 
were kept detained at the Police Station Sadar, 
Bhiwani, from July 1, 1975 to July 14, 1975 and 
then shown as arrested on July 14, 1975, under 
Sections 107/151 Cr. P. C. Shri Nakai has denied 
before the Commission any personal knowledge 
about the detention of Shri Mangat Ram and his 
Sons at the Police Station. Shri Mangat Ram, a 
village Ayurvedic physician, has stated that he and 
his sons were illegally detained in the Police Station 
by Shri Harnam Singh, SHO, and had to suffer 
various sorts of inconvenience and indignity. They 
were pressurised and coerced by the police to dis- 
close the whereabouts of Shri P. L. Goyal. Shri 
Mangat Ram has stated that Shri Bansi Lai and Shri 
Bansi Lai's son, Shri Surinder Singh, and their 
associate Shri Devi Parsanna, were responsible for 
harassment caused to him and the members of his 
family. 

17.79 Shri Harnam Singh has, however, denied 
that he detained the family members of Shri Goyal 
illegally for about a fortnight at the Police Station ; 
he has admitted the fact that he had summoned them 
at the Police Station every; day to find out the move- 
ments of Shri Pitambar Lai Goyal, and that he was 
doing this at the instance of the District Magistrate. 
The unlawful detention of Shri Mangat Ram, Shri 
Ram Partap and Shri Ram Niwas at the Police 
Station has been confirmed by the evidence of Shri 
Maman Ram, a jeep driver of the Office of the 
Executive Engineer, PWD, Bhiwani, and Thakur 
Narender Singh, an Advocate, of Bhiwani. Shri 
Maman Ram has stated that he was attached to the 
Police Station from June 27, 1975 till July 17, 
1975, and had witnessed the detention of Shri 
Mangat Ram and his two sons at the Police Station. 
Shri Narender Singh, who was arrested under MISA 
on July 5, 1975, and taken to the Police Station, 
has stated that he had seen Shri Mangat Ram and 
his two sons at the Police Station and had been told 
by them that hey had been detained there by SHO,- 
Shri Harnam Singh. 

17.80 Shri R. S. Verma has contradicted the 
version of Shri Harnam Singh and' emphatically 



26 



denied that at. any time he had asked Shri Harnam 
Singh to pressurise the family members of Shri 
Goyal in order to ascertain the latter's whereabouts. 

17.81 Shri Mangat Ram and his two sons were 
shown as arrested on July 14, 1975 under sections 
107/151 Cr.P.C They were produced before the 
SDM, Bhiwani, who refused to release them on bail. 
They were ultimately released on bail by the order 
of the High Court on September 23, 1975. 

17.82 After his release from Jail custody, Shri 
Ram Partap, father of Shri Pitambar Lai Goyal, 
made efforts at various levels for the release of his 
son and submitted petitions against Shri Bansi Lai to 
the President of India, the Home Minister, the 
Governor of Haryana, etc. Apparently,- the efforts 
of Shri Ram Partap to secure the release of his son 
Shri Pitambar Goyal, seem to have irked the autho- 
rities. The result was that Shri Ram Partap was 
detained under MISA. According to Shri Nakai 
the decision to detain Shri Ram Partap emanated 
from "higher quarters". Shri Verma has admitted 
that in the case of Shri Ram Partap's detention also, 
he passed orders without applying his mind. 

17.83 Shri Goyal who, after his detention, had 
been lodged in Hissar Jail, submitted an application 
on January 23, 1976, for appearing in Haryana Civil 
Service (Judicial) Examination to the Jail autho- 
rities. This application was duly forwarded to the 
Secretary, Jail Department. It is seen from the 
relevant file that the Chief Secretary, Shri S. D 
Bhambri who was concurrently holding the charge 
or the Jail Department, recorded a note suggesting 
that clause 17 of the Haryana Detenus (Conditions 
of Detention) Order, 1971, should be amended, so 
that no detenu can apply for or take to any academic 
or competitive examination during the period of 
detention. In the note, it was also mentioned that 
as a result of this amendment, it would be possible 
to withhold the application of Shri Goyal. 

The exact noting in the file is reproduced below- 

TO* i 7 *V tfaffinr ** forr stpt mfr tf$ dete „ u 

fisfr shfr tf ^r-academic*r Competitive- 
T^S%.I q*ft amendment^ % <fi?r^^T 3rrfe 
detenu^ (*fr <ftn*R: m® *fcw) ^r application 
form "n^T ferr srrrfjrr I srr^wrsf i 

3-2-76 

MET (away) 

TM- 



3-2-76 



CM 



W ifaY # £<r frrcrr f i 



PS (CM) 
3-2-76 



Further ^I^Tft ^ fHcf 



Sd/- 
(S. D. 



Bhambri) 

3-2-76 



On February 4, 1976, the Government 
Notification incorporating the necessary amendment, 
Le, Haryana Decenus (Conditions of Detention)' 
Second Amendment Order, 1976, was passed. ' 

17.84 Shri S. D. Bhambri has stated that he 
recorded this note at the express direction of the 
Chief Minister, Shri B. D. Gupta. He said that he 
had pointed out to Shri B. p. Gupta that such an 
embargo was unjustified; but he failed to dissuade 
the Chief Minister from the course of action directed 
by him. The Chief Minister told him that this 
was to be done in accordance with orders from 
"higher quarters", i.e. the Union Defence Minister. 
Shri Bhambri has admitted that he recorded this 
note under the special circumstances stated by Mm 
against his good sense and judgment and he did not 
put forth his own point of view in the file, as he 
felt that in the circumstances prevailing at that time 
tins -course would have been counter-productive,- 
and further diluted his effectiveness as a counsellor 
tor the future, without changing in any way the 
decision in the instant case. Shri Bhambri has also 
mentioned that he had ho axe to grind against Shri 
Pitambar Lai Goyal, and later on tried to redress 
the wrong which had been done to him by appoint- 
ing him to the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial) on 
the basis of his earlier selection. 

17.85 Shri B. D. Gupta stated that he had 
, never issued any instruction to Shri Bhambri to 
record a note suggesting the proposed amendment 
As a matter of fact, this subject had never, been 
personally discussed by Shri Bhambri with him 
He also hinted that Shri Bansi Lai was personally 
interested m this particular case and the Chief 
Secretary may have put. up the note, on the 
instruction of Shri Bansi Lai. According to him 
senior officers of the. Haryana Government' 
maintained liaison with Shri Bansi Lai even when 
the latter had become the Union Defence Minister 
Jftn Oupta also admitted: that during his Chief 
Ministership m respect of matters in which 
Shri Bansi Lai was personally interested, he did not 
interfere. He also added that having known the 
grave injustice done to Shri Goyal, he tried to undo 
the wrong w helping Shri Goyal to join the 
Haryana Civil Service (Judicial). 

17.86 Notices under Rule 5(2) (a) of the 
Commissions of Inquiry Rules and summons under 
section 8B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act were 



: B ;■:>.: 



27 



^tttM.'jMOSm&SKiZnvr'S- 



issued to Dr. A. C. Jain, Shri R. S. Verma, Shri 
S. D, Bhambri and Shri Bansi Lai. 

17.87 Dr. A. C. Jain submitted his written 

representation. He cross-examined Dr. Sondhi bm 

did not elicit anything which may support his 

version. Dr. Sondhi admitted that he had sent for 

Dr. Jain in the month of June, 1975, to Chandigarh, 

but that was in connection with the transfer orders 

of Dr. Jain. Dr. Jain was not able to explain to 

the Commission what were the actual threats or 

pressures on him which compelled him to do what 

_ he had done for manipulating the records of the 

. ' Medical Board. Dr. Jain did not have any 

satisfactory explanation as to why he failed to get 

the concurrence of the other two Members of the 

Board, before revising the opinion of the Board on 

the medical report of Shri Pitambar Lai Goyal. 

Dr/Jain pleaded that he had no personal interest in 

the case and that he had only recommended a 

second medical opinion without categorically 

rendering Shri Goyal medically unfit. The fault of 

Dr. A. C. Jain was to charge the report of the 

Medical Board in the manner in which it was done 

and as pointed out by the Forensic Expert which 

has been quoted in the body of this Report. What 

Dr. Jain had done, whatever may have been the 

compulsions under which he may have worked, was 

completely contrary to the conduct expected "of a 

senior and responsible doctor and contrary to 

medical ethics. 

17.88 It does appear, on the admission of : 
Dr. Sondhi himself, that he had met Dr. Jam and 

explored the possibility of altering the records. He 
had also seen the form as eventually altered "by 
Dr. Jain, but he did not take any steps in this 
regard. 

17.89 The Commission is of the opinion that 
Dr. A. C. Jain as the Chairman of the Medical 
Board, has misused his position and abused his 
authority in manipulating the medical report\on 
Shri Pitambar Lai Goyal. 

' 17.90 Shri \. S. Verma, District Magistrate, 
was served with a notice under Rule 5(2) (a 1 ) of 
the Commissions of Inquiry Rules and summons 
under Section SB of the Commissions of Inquiry 
Act. He had given a written representation and 
had also examined witnesses. The version of Shri 
Harnam Singh, SHO, that the adverse police report 
on Shri Goyal was got prepared at the instance of 
Shri R. S. Verma, is not acceptable. An adverse 
report as prepared by SHO, Shri Harnam Singh 
himself against Shri Goyal finds mention in para 4 
of the Confidential Register of the concerned Police 
Station for the year 1974. There is another report 
prepared prior to this by another SHO on Shri 
Goyal which also is of an adverse nature. The 
Commission did not .pursue the circumstances under 
which these two adverse notes came to be written 
in the year 1974 by two different SHOsas it was 
outsjde the scope Of the inquiry. It is sufficient to 
mention here that the evidence of Shri Harnam 
Singh, SHO, has not been found by the Commission 
to be reliable. Under the circumstances, the 



Commission does not find Shri R. S. Verma 
responsible for any improper conduct with regard 
to the verification of the character and antecedents 
of Shri Pitambar Lai Goyal. 

17.91 Shri Bhambri was served with a notice 
under Rule 5(2) (a) of the Rules and summons 
under Section 8B of the Commissions of Inquiry 
Act. He submitted a written statement and also 
cited two witnesses for being examined in his 
defence, and also Shri B. (D. Gupta for cross- 
examination. Shri B. D. Gupta could not be 
present because of the illness of his son and hence 
Shri Bhambri agreed to give him up. It . may be 
relevant to point out at this place that when Shri 
Bhambri asserted at the first stage of the hearing 
that the noting that he had made in the file was in 
pursuance of the instruction given to him by the 
Chief Minister, Shri B. D. Gupta, this was denied 
by Shri B. D. Gupta in the presence of Shri 
Bhambri. Actually both Shri B. D. Gupta and 
Shri Bhambri took the witness box twice on this 
occasion to deny each other's version of the case. 
Shri M. L. Sharma, Office Superintendent in Shri 
Bhambri's office, has stated that : — ■ 

"I distinctly remember that the Chief Secretary, 
who was holding the Home Department as 
well, sent for me and there I was enquired 
whether any representation or a letter or a 
reference from Mr. Pitamber Lai Goyal 
has been received. Then I replied in the 
affirmative. Thereafter, my worthy Chief 
Secretary told me that the CM. is interested 
to amend the rule, you .please submit the 
file urgently". 

The former Principal Secretary to tne Chief 
Minister, Shri J. D. Gupta, stated that when he put 
up the concerned file regarding the proposed 
amendment to the Rules regarding permission to 
the detenus to apply for appearing in examinations, 
he got the impression that the Chief Minister knew 
the background. Shri Bhambri himself in his 
deposition before the Commission said that in 
recording the relevant note in the file he was. only 
complying with the * express wishes of the Chief 
Minister, who had told him that the particular 
instruction was in accordance with ;the orders from 
"higher quarters". Shri Bhambri understood the 
"higher quarters" to mean Shri Bansi Lai, the then 
Defence Minister. Shri Bhambri had no personal 
axe to grind and he bore no animus against Shri 
Pitambar Lai Goyal. Shri Bhambri specifically 
mentioned the name of Shri Pitambar Lai Goyal in 
the noting to remind the Chief Minister of the effect 
that the amendment would have on this particular 
detenu. Shri Bhambri went on to add that 
considering the circumstances prevailing then, he 
thought it orudent to go along instead of forcing the 
issue to a breaking point which would have denied 
him the opportunity to do many helpful acts which 
he had done in protecting the officers. 

17.92 The Commission has taken into account 
the statements of Shri Bhambri as also the 
statements of witnesses examined . by him. The 
Commission finds that Shri Bhambri had no 



28 



personal interest in conducting himself as he 
actually did and that he himself had no personal 
grudge against Shri Goyal. It is a matter of record 
that Shri Bhambri had, in the month immediately 
following the lifting of the emergency, helped Shri 
.Goyal to get back the office Shri Goyal had been 
denied earlier; Under the circumstances, it can 
only be inferred, though it is not proved on positive 
evidence, that ne acted ■ as he did only under 
instruction from some superior authority. Shri 
• B 5 1 ? I ?P n sa ^ s that Shri B - *>■ Gupta had personally 
told him that the instruction emanated from 'higher 
quarters' which he had understood to refer 
obviously to the Defence Minister." Shri B D 
Gupta says that he had not instructed Shri Bhambri 
who might have received his instruction from Shri 
Bansi Lai. It thus seems certain that the exercise 
to change the rule was undertaken by Shri Bhambri 
pursuant to the wishes of Shri Bansi Lai, though it 
has not been possible to establish whether these 
instruction was received by Shri Bhambri directly 
from Shn Bansi Lai or through- Shri B. D. Gupta 
Ihe fact remains, however, that Shri Bhambri did 
act, admittedly not on his own volition, but on 
advice from a higher authority. Having said this 
in extenuation of Shri Bhambri's conduct the 
Commission may point out that changing a rule of 
the Government only to prejudicially affect an 
individual citizen is tantamount to setting the 
authority ^f the State to the prejudice of an 
individual. Considered in this light, Shri Bhambri's 
Tc2 g - m T> S -? fe u aS V efers s P e cifically to the name 
I S 1 ^ pltambar Lai Goyal was avoidable and 
should have been avoided. But the Commission 
cannot + be oblivious to the prevailing conditions in 
the State of Haryana during the period of (he 

Z e e rg S, C n^iffi nd f, r / h0Se circumstan ces it would 
nave been difficult for any one to act as a hero 
Even so, considering the position of trust and 
responsibility that Shri Bhambri held at that point 
of time, his conduct did not conform to the best 
traditions of the Administrative Service to which 
he belongs. 



vengeance. In the process he did not. stop short 
ot even ordering tne officials under him to get 
reports fabricated for the sole purpose of denying 
a young man of that family an office in the Judicial 
Service which would have made his career. The 
vendetta that Shri Bansi. Lai nursed against this 
family did not abate even after he had detained 
the son, father, uncle and grandfather, and denied 
Shri Pitambar Lai Goyal the office to which he was 
entitled. This was during the time he was the 
Chief Minister of Haryana. When later on he was 
appointed the Defence Minister in the Govern- 
ment of India, he appears to have pursued his 
animosity against the Goyal family as borne out by 
the statement of his successor, Shri B. D. Gupta, 
who stated before the Commission that the exercise 
undertaken by Shri Bhambri, the Chiet Secretary, 
to change the rules so as to disable a detenu and 
particularly Shri Pitambar Lai Goyal, from taking 
a competitive examination might have been initiated 
at the instance of Shri Bansi Lai. There is no 
evidence before the Commission as to the direct 
.involvement of Shri Bansi Lai hi channelising his 
wishes to the Chief Secretary, Shri Bhambri— 
whether directly or through Shri B. D. Gupta. 
There is little doubt, however, on the evidence, 
thai: Shri Bansi Lai was responsible for the change 
in the Rules. The Commission notes with amaze- 
ment the statement made by Shri B. D. Gupta to 
the effect that even as Chief Minister, he stood in 
constant tear of being detained under MIS A by 
Shri Bansi Lai. This typifies the general atmos- 
phere of fear and uncertainty generated by Shri ■ 
Bansi Lai in Haryana during the period of the 
emergency from the effect of which no one from 
the highest to the lowest was free. An incumbent 
of the office of the Chief Minister of a State who 
should have been the very embodiment of justice 
and fairplay in all his public dealings, has descend- 
ed as in this case to a petty vindictive level to 
SvitiRfv a personal grudge against the members of 
a family. 



I7>93 Shri Bansi Lai was served with a notice 
under Rule 5(2) (a) of the Commissions of Inquiry 
Rules and summons under Section 8B of the Com- 
missions of Inquiry Act. He did not file any written 
statement. ^ He appeared on July 3, 1978, before 
the Commission and raised certain objections re- 
garding the procedure adopted by the Commission 
and also raised the plea that he was "not bound 
legally and Constitutionally" to make any statement 
before the Commission. The Commission rejected 
his contention and directed him to take oath and 
give his version of the case, but he declined to do so 
A complaint under Sections 178 & 179 IPC has 
therefore, been forwarded to the Chief Metropolitan 
Magistrate, Delhi, against him by the Commission. 

17.94 On the evidence the Commission finds the 
conduct of Shri Bansi Lai in regard to this case 
as reprehensible. For purely personal reasons he 
grosslv misused his position as Chief Minister and 
abused his authority. He went after three genera- 
tions of a family to satisfy his appetite for 



VI. Use oj compulsion arid force in the implementa- 
tion of the Family Planning programme in 
village Uttawar,- -District Gurgoan, Haryana 

17.95 Uttawar is a village in District Gurgaon 
Haryana, inhabited mostly by the Muslims belong- 
ing to Meo community. The total population oi 
the village is about 8,000. On November 6, 1976, 
the village was raided by a large police froce com- 
prising 23 reserves (about 700 policemen) armed 
with rifles, tear-gas equipment, etc.. under the 
leadership of Shri M. K. Miglani, the Deputy 
Commissioner, Gurgaon and Shri Tek Chand, the 
Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurgaon. After 
the raid, the police carried away in trucks about 
550 villagers to the police station at Hathin for 
interrogation. Of these persons, later on, 180 
were taken to nearby "family planning centres" at 
Nuh andMandkola and sterilised. In the course 
of the raid, the police could recover from the 
houses of the villagers some lathis, bhalas and agri- 
cultural implements but no fire arms. The police 



29 



also arrested 100 villagers under Sections 107/151 
Cr. P. C. on charge of assaulting a Patwari. 

17.96 This raid on village Uttawar was, it 
appears,' planned deliberately by the State officials 
because of. the opposition of the local population 
to submit to the sterilisation programme of the 
State Gvernment. It is seen from the records and 
evidence available before the Commission that 
the village Uttawar, an important village in the 
Mewat region of the Gurgaon district, had become 
a focal point of opposition to the sterilisation drive 
which was being enthusiastically carried on in the 
district. On July 30, 1976, at a meeting of the 
Chief Medical Officers of Haryana, held under 
the chairmanship of Shri Harpal Singh, the Health 
Minister of Haryana, the problem of poor response 
to family planning programme from the Mewat 
region of Gurgaon district was discussed and it was 
decided that some effective technique should be 
evolved for "bringing the Meos in the fold of 
family planning". 

17^97 Shri Jagbir Singh, Sub-Divisional Officer 
(Civil), Nuh, has stated before the Commission 
that the villagers of Uttawar were resolutely oppos- 
ing the family planning programme of the Govern- 
ment and were not allowing even a single Govern- 
ment official to enter the village for family planning 
work. According to him, the District Magistrate 
«nd the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurgaon, 
were keen to tackle effectively the developing situa- 
tion in Uttawar. Shri Jagbir Singh has further 
stated that he had always opposed the use of force 
for dealing with the situation in village Uttawar 
and was oh that account regarded as "a coward 1 ' 
by the then District Magistrate, Shri Miglani, and 
was accordingly transferred from Nuh Sub-Division 
shortly before the commencement of the Uttawar 
operations. 

17.98 From the first week of October, 1976 
the district authorities commenced preparations 
for mounting the Uttawar operation. According 
to Shri Bajwa, Inspector General of 'Police, in a 
meeting with him at Chandigarh on October. 7, 
1976, Shri Tek Chand, the Senior Supdt. of Police, 
Gurgabri; had informed him that the tew and order 
situation in Uttawar was fast deteriorating and that 
he wanted to take firm measures to stop the trend. 
Shri Tek Chand has stated that a meeting was also 
held in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, 
Gurgaon, on October 8, 1976, in which the famtlv 
planning campaign in Gurgaon district in general. 
and the complexities of the Uttawar situation in 
particular, were discussed." 

17.99 The supply of electricity to Uttawar group 
of .villages was disconnected on October 12, T976, 
with a view to pressurising the reportedly recalci- 
trant villagers. Shri Tevatia, Line Superintendent, 
Haryana State Electricity Board, has stated that on 
October 12, 1976. he was ordered by the DC 
Giireaon, Shri Mielani, to switch off the supply of 
electricity to the Uttawar group of villages as these 
villagers were not co-operating with the familv plan- 

. ning programmes of the Government. Shri Tevatia 
S/25-HA/78— 5 



has said that in accordance with the DC& 
instruction, he switched off the supply of electricity 
to Uttawar village and recorded a note in ihe 
Message Book maintained in the office of the Exe- 
cutive Engineer, Palwal, to this effect. This 
Message Book was produced -before the Commis- 
sion. According to Shri Tevatia, he was later on 
directed by Shri Pritam Singh, the Superintending 
Engineer, Faridabad, during his visit to Hathin, to 
restore the supply of electricity to Uttawar group 
of villages and he carried out the orders of the 
Superintending Engineer. Shri Tevatia has fur- 
ther mentioned that on November 5, 1976, he 
was summoned at Hathin by the Deputy Commis- 
sioner, Shri Miglani, and severely reprimanded for 
restoring the power supply to village Uttawar 'in i 
disregard of his instruction and asked him to dis- 
connect the electric supply again. He complied 
with this instruction. According to Haryana State 
Electricity Board records, no electricity was re- 
corded as consumed by the Uttawar group of 
villages during the period from October 12, 1976 
to October 29. 1976, and again from November 5, 
1976 to November 13, 1976. 

17.100 Shri Tevatia has also stated that he was 
detained at Hathin Rest House and beaten up by 
the police at the direction of Shri Tek Chand. 
SSP. 

17.101 Shri S. S. Vohra, Executive Engineer, 
Operation Division, Palwal, has corroborated the 
version of Shri Tevatia regarding his detention by 
the police at Hathin Rest House and stated. that 
he brought the matter to the notice of the then 
Superintending Engineer, Shri Pritam Singh, and 
requested him to intervene for Shri Tevatia's 
release. Shri Vohra has further deposed that elec- 
tric supply to Uttawar group of villages had re- 
mained discontinued during October/November, 
1976, and Shri Pritam Singh had ordered its resto- 
ration. Shri Vohra has also stated that under the 
Electricity Act, electric supply can be discontinued 
only on grounds of default in payment of charges 
or breach of agreement; disconnection of electricity 
without any reason v is contrary to law. He con- 
firmed that there were no grounds for disconnect- 
ing supply of electricity to Uttawar group of 
villages. Shri Miglani, DC, has, however, denied 
any knowledge of the disconnection of electricity 
and stated that he had called Shri Tevatia at the 
Rest House at Hathin on November 5, 1976, for 
questioning him about certain allegations of corrup- 
tion received by him against Shri Tevatia. 

17.102 A scrutiny of the tour diaries of Shri 
Miglani and Shri Tek Chand reveals that both of 
them had visited Hathin on October 12, 1976. 

17.103 On the same day, i.e., October 12, 1975, 
a case (FIR 112) was registered at Police Station, 
Hathin under Sections 43/48 DIR and Sections 
25/54/59 Arms Act against some of the villagers 
of Uttawar for unlawful possession of arms. The 
First Information Report contained account that 
some of the villagers of Uttawar were indulging in 
adverse propaganda against the -family planning 



30 



programme of the Government, were fomentine 
SSTp ?• 1 f tensi00 1 and maintaining clandestine links 
with Pakistan and smuggling arms from the neigh- 
bouring State of Rajasthan with a view to subvert- 
ing the family planning programme of the Govern- 
ment. On October 23, 1976, another case (FIR 
113) was registered at the Police Station, Hathin 
35?-.- soin ? " r ? sldents & Uttawar for allegedly 
obstmc mg the investigation of the earlier case 5 ", 
™£iJ, 12 ";. The s . ta £ e wa s now set for launching 
punitive action against the villagers of Uttawar 

17.104 Shri Tek Chanel, the SSP Gurgaon ore- 
pared a detailed note on October 25. 1976 <££ 
taming his assessment of the situation in Uttawar 

in nL« 0t * % h ! r ^ rred to the " IawIc " situation'"' 
m Uttawar and registration of two criminal cases 
by the police against a number of villagers There 
Ttht Sm referenc l in ^s note to the oppo ition 
of the villagers to the family planning prSramnS 

jL^^r^:. s fl" Tek Chand P has sSed 

na rv e t? e M^T si01 ?^ at . he took this note pro- 
nally to Madhuban (District Karna!), where the 

Inspector General of Police had come To attend 

fte conference of the Dy. Inspectors General of 

2SS IGp'and DIC^ 4"** ^ ^ 
MP and tkk mr ^ ?? ?• Range ' and both »e 
StaB the rSrf ? K- ept6d h ^P r °P^aIs for orgs, 
nismg tne raid. In his note, Shri Tek ChxnA w 

mentioned that he wanted to send £ge poHce 
contingent to village Uttawar for apprehending the 
accused persons^ recovery of arms and motivlt on 

fo el of ^fre^ and h t- needed a « "SSSS 
'8J2L I reserves for this purpose. Shri Tek 
Chand has stated that he had explicitly fold Shri 
Bajwa about the family planning P angi of thi 
operation and the latter had raised no objections 

17.105 In the conference of the T>nm,/ 

S.ob r° r 26/?7 er u„* P ^ CC ^ at ^uSTon 
uciooer 26/27, under the chairmanship of Shri 

ration of the lamtly planning programmes of tL 
ST?i? m = n ' w V lso di!cuss «i an U™ decided 

SS Ae P De^° O, ^**to** ^ at » 
„j. , e rt i: e P ut y Commissioners and <h<* r^w 
Medical Officers of the State in maknfp the rSf 
planning programme a success and there w^n 
harm in using the PoIiVp for «,«?>■ wa& no 

family Dlanning campaign" nS S™ ! , ?f to 

into action "erring *T 1^' sicV of Lt mU g ° 

■ strength rather thai being unS strength "?. ^ 

17.106 On November 3 197* *w a 
another meeting at. Gurgaon wh"h wa ftttehS 
Mi.?" ?T1' IGP - the ^'^t Magistrate Shri 

less messaee on October ^ti io't* Issue ?.a wire- 
the Suh-Dfyisiona^gist ate "fo STV5 
prepared with the relevant data of ftmSi . ■ • y 
and allied difficulties Tbein^aeed SXS™'?^ 
■mplementation of family pla^nT^aignT Bott 



Shri Bajwa and- Shri Miglani have stated that in the 
meeting, discussions centred round the plan for 
raiding village Uttawar and there was no discussion 
about the family planning programme ; but Shri 
Jagbir Singh, SDO (Civil), -Nun, and Shri Tek 
Chand have said that family planning problems in 
Gurgaon District did come up for discussion in the 
meeting. Shri Jagbir Singh has further stated that 
in the same meeting, he voiced his opposition to the 
" s . e of _ force in .village Uttawar as he feared that 
this might cause unnecessary bloodshed. 

Trp 17 ' 107 w° n J^ ei i be . r 4 ? 1976,- Shri Bajwa, 

IGP, issued a demi-official letter to Shri S D 

Bhambri, the Chief Secretary, Haryana, enclosing 

the note of SSP, Gurgaon, dated October 25 i97# 

in his letter Shri Bajwa mentioned that he had 

gone into the whole matter in 'great depth' and 

decided to provide an additional force of 23 

reserves as against SSP's demand of 18 reserves 

tor operations connected with the recovery of arms 

and arrest of accused persons in village Uttawar 

,.Miri Bajwa has deposed that on the same day he 

along. with the Chief Secretary met the Chief 

Minister Shri B D. Gupta, and" explained to him 

he gravity of the situation. in village Uttawar and 

the plan of the proposed police action in the village 

According to Shri Bajwa, the Chief .Minister » gave ' 

Both^LTn7° ? e P I°£° S . ed poIicc operation.- 
Both Shri B D. Gupta and Shri S. D Bhambri have 

Member Tl5r*\ ^ * d ^ p]ace on 
aWrtSfri'* ' - Whe - em there were di scussions 
about the Uttawar situation. Shri Baiwa ako ^nt 

another D.O^ letter to the SSP on th^me day 

flls? ^. 4 « 1976, wherein he gave 
detailed instruction to the SSP regarding the 
manner of deployment of the force. : "' S ' 

17,108 Shri Bajwa has said that he sanctioned a 

arge police force of 23 reserves for dealing with 

h. difficult law and. order situation in Uttawfrlnd 

that he had no prior information that the force 

SSS ' a '5° \ S Uti ? sed for sterilisation o h ? 

be 4 rS 1976 f h?Vf; i In h ^ letter dated N ^m! 
„t T J> I9 T 7 6 ' he . ha ^ only outlined the twin objects 
of the police action at Uttawar, i.e. the arrest of the 
accused persons and recovery of arms and he had 
never approved of any proposal about the use of 
force for family planning work. He admitted C 
he had not contacted his counterpart in rSZ 
for getting further information about the S S 

nTstrfct ng 9 h ° • ^ S fr °? Ra J astha ^ to Gurgaon 
District. Shri Ba,wa could not satisfactorily explain 
the reason why in forwarding the renort nf tS < c2 ' 

SS^ t0 fte ftntily planet 
S5"i sS^eaier; fifB 



31 



villagers to agree to undergo sterilisation. They 

also discussed the matter with Shri Miglani, DC. 

Both Shri Khurshid Ahmed and Shri Safed Khan 

have stated that they met Shri Miglani and 

requested him to defer the proposed raid and 

assured him that the villagers would willingly 

undergo operations after the sowing season was 

over ; but they were told by the District Magistrate 

that the latter was not in a position to call off the 

proposed raid. Shri Khursid Ahmed was advised 

by the District Magistrate to meet Shri B. D. Gupta, 

the Chief Minister of Haryana. Shri Khurshid 

Ahmed has further mentioned that he did meet 

Shri B. D. Gupta and requested him to postpone 

' the raid as the villagers were willing' to undergo 

the operation after the sowing season was over, but 

the ■ Chief Minister expressed his unwillingness to 

do so and made clear that " ^fWu &m%. % f¥firc 

*\ tf^rra- | \ xs eft fmr i " (the raid 

. will take place : the prestige of the Haryana 

Government is involved). 

17.110 The operation at Uttawar was launched 
with the knowledge and approval of the Chief 
Minister, Shri B. D. -Gupta. The Union Defence 
Minister, Shri Bansi Lai, was also kept informed 
of the Uttawar developments. Shri B. D. Gupta 
in his deposition before the Commission has men- 
tioned that in Haryana the initial sterilisation . tar- 
get of 57,000 for the year 1976-77 was raised to 
2,00,000 and he himself was vigorously campaign- 
ing for the success of the family planning campaign 
in the State. He has further stated that he was 
aware of the growing opposition of the inhabitants 
of village Uttawar. to the family planning 
programmes of the Government and felt that if 
opposition in a leading village like Uttawar could 
be overcome, it would facilitate family planning 
work in the entire Mewat area. He- said that he 
gave his approval to the police action for the 
recovery of arms' and curbing of lawlessness in 
village Uttawar. 

17.111 Shri Miglani has said that on October 26, 
1976, at the express direction of the Chief Minister 
Shri B.-D. Gupta, he met Shri Bansi Lai, the Union 
Defence Minister, at Delhi and. apprised him of the 
situation prevailing in Uttawar. Shri ' MiglanPs 
meeting with Shri Bansi Lai on October 26, 1976, 
has been confirmed by Shri S. D. Bhambri, the Chief 
Secretary, who had also gone to meet the Defence 
■Minister on the same day in connection with some 
other matter. Again on November 5, 1976, i.e. 
immediately before the day fixed for the raid, Shri 
Miglani and Shri Tek Chand had met Shri Bansi Lai 
and apprised him of the situation in Uttawar. 
According to Shri Miglani, the proposed action in 
Uttawar had Shri Bansi Lai's blessings. Shri Miglani 
has stated that he had met the Defence Minister on 
the direction of the Chief Minister ; but Shri B. D. 
Gupta has stated that he had not asked Shri Miglani 
to meet the Defence Minister. Shri B. D. Gupta 
admitted that some officers of the Haryana Govern- 
ment used to meet the Defence Minister during their 
visits to Delhi. Shri Tek Chand accepts the fact 
of his visit to Delhi on November 5, 1976, but 
denies; any meeting with Shri Bansi Lai. 



17.112 Early in the morning of November 6, 
1976, a large police force led by the SSP and the 
Deputy Commissioner encircled village Uttawar, 
According to Shri Miglani, though the SSP was in 
overall charge of the operations, he also decided to 
remain present for ensuring the "maintenance of 
peace". He also provided services of six Magistrates. 

17.113 The raiding party, according to the testi- 
mony of some of the villagers, carried on indiscri- 
minate house-searches during which they reportedly 
destroyed the household property of the villagers. 
One Shri Haji Chhutmal, son of Shri Kalai Khan, 
has stated that during the month of October, 1976, 
the Deputy Commissioner and the Senior Superin- 
tendent of Police used to visit the village frequently 
and ask the villagers to undergo sterilisation. Shri 
Haji Chhutmal has further mentioned that in the 
early hours of the morning of November 6, 1976, 
the police had asked the villagers over the micro- 
phone to gather near the bus stand and the villagers 
out of fear obeyed the order. From the bus stand 
the villagers were taken by trucks to the Hathin 
Police Station for interrogation. According to him, 
some of the villagers were arrested by the police on 
false charges and some others were sent for 
sterilisation to the health centres. 

17.114 Shri Mauja, son of Shri Chahat, who 
was arrested by the police, stated that since he had 
already been sterilised, he was arrested along with 
other under Sections 107/151 Cr. P.C. on false 
charges. He was amongst the 100 persons arrested 
on November 6, 1976, on charge of assaulting a 
Patwari. 

17.115 A villager named Shri Chahat, son of 
Shri Phool Khan, an old man of 70 years, has stated 
that after the raid on November 6, 1976, he and a 
number of villagers were forcibly taken to Mandkola 
hospital for sterilisation. Shri Chahat has further 
stated that the Doctor in the Family Planning Centre 
initially refused to sterilise him because of his 
advanced age, but ultimately had to operate on him 
because of the pressure of the police and revenue 
officials. 

17.116 Shri Abdul Rehman alias Lala, son of 
Shri Shai Khan, 25 years, has stated that after the 
raid on November 6, 1976, he was taken to the 
Mandkola Primary Health Centre on November 7, 
1976, along with others and forcibly sterilised there, 
despite his plea that he had only one issue, a 
daughter. He has also stated that initially the 
Doctor had refused to operate on him, but was later 
on pressurised by the police to undertake the 
operation. 

17.117 The statements of the villagers regarding 
their forcible sterilisation are corroborated by the 
evidence of the Medical officers attached to the 
Health Centres at Nuh and Mandkola. Doctor S. C. 
Kalra, Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, 
Mandkola, has stated that on November 7, 1976, 
a large number of persoiis were forcibly brought* to 
the Mandkola Health Centre in trucks by the police 
for sterilisation. He has also mentioned that he 



refused to operate upon one old villager called Shri 
Cnanat, but was ultimately forced to do so by the 
revenue and police officials present at the health 
centre. Dr. M. L. Larqiya, Medical Officer of the 
Primary Health Centre, Nuh, has also deposed that 
on November 7, .1976, a number of villagers from 
Uttawar were brought to Nuh Primary Health Centre 
for sterilisation. Referring to the pressure mounted 
on the villagers for forcible sterilisation, Smt S 
Laroiya, another Medical Officer of Nuh Health 
Centre, has stated "at times the villagers used to 
beg for operation in order to escape the officials' 

S ra S y ^ From . the records of Nuh and Mandkola 
Health Centres, it is seen that between November 6 
and November 9, 1976, 180 villagers of Uttawar 
were sterilised at these two Health Centres. 

17.118 The general pressure exerted during the 
emergency by the civil authorities on the Medical 
Officers to sterilise even ineligible cases has been 
stressed by Vi O. P. Kapoor, District Family Plan- 

Chief Medical Officer, Gurgaon, in their depositions 
w S e ^ omim . ssl . on - Dr. Kapoor has stated 
before the Commission that he used to receive 
reports from the Doctors of the District that they 
nSLti* 06 P^H™^ by the civil authorities to 
operate on ineligible cases. As the Civil officers 
were keen to achieve the sterilisation quotas &3 
WhS^ ^ Di&trict .Magistrate, they habitually 
brushed aside even genuine objections raised by the 
2KES; ^ cco f rdin S to him, the Doctors were in a 

riSrES? &e ^T 1 Confid ential Reports of 
thA Doctors were routed through the Sub Divisional 
Officers and the Deputy Commissioners. 

17.119 Dr. KB. Lai, the Chief Medical Officer 
Gurgaon, has admitted that there was an element of 
SS^ff ? ^e family planning programmes which 
were being carried on with great fanfare in Gureaon 
during the year 3976. He has disclosed Thafthe 
sterilisation target nf the District for the year 1 976? 
77 was twice revised upwards. He has also said 
to during the year 1975-76, some of the District 
Officers including the Deputy Commissioner Shri 
SfVf 00 ? P riz ^ S for their exc ^"ent perfor- 
med £ a ?S? y Planni ? g W0 ^ k - Br - Lal ha P s con- 
SfnLSf • was simmering resentment among 
the Doctors against the entries i n their Annual 
ririeft 11 ^ R °H US bein g. r f^rded by the dvil " 
rities m accordance with Haryana Government^ 
instruction authorising the SDOs and DCs to enter 
Remarks m the Annual" Confidential Rolls of the 

mSe TnThf 1011 t0 - IGP &™»&ft wifeless 



32 



17.121 Shn Bajwa, IGP, marked the signal to 

the Chief Minister and it was duly seen by the Chief 

Minister. Shri Bajwa has tried to explain that he 

did not approve of the forcible sterilisations that were 

being carried on in the wake of the police operation 

and felt unhappy. He had endorsed the message 

received from the SSP to the Chief Minister. On a 

query from the Commission as to why he did not 

initiate action against the officers who disregarded 

his instruction, he admitted that this was an omission 

He tried to explain that in the prevailing situation 

m Haryana it was difficult for the IGP to initiate 

action even against the Superintendents of Police 

many of whom were maintaining direct links with 

the 'high-ups'. He produced before the Commission 

a confidential letter written to him by the then Home 

Secretary, Haryana Government, in which (he IGP 

was advised not to initiate action against any 

Superintendent of Police without prior approval of 

the Chief Minister. 

17.122 Giving his version of the events of 
November 6, 1976, Shri Miglani has stated that 
though he remained present at the time of the 
commencement of the raid, he left in the afternoon 
to supervise arrangements in connection with the 
visit of Smt. Abida Begum, wife of the President 
of India, to Faridabad. But before leaving for 
uurgaon, he left instructions with SDM, Nuh Shri 
Gajraj Singh, that sterilisation should not be 
performed on persons detained after the raid. Shri 
Miglani has further mentioned that Shri Gajrai 
Singh came to meet him at Faridabad next day and 
informed him that it had been decided by the Senior 
Superintendent of Police, in consultation with the 
i<-rF, that operations should be performed on 
villagers who were willing. Shri Miglani could not 
adequately explain as to why he, the head of the 
District Administration, left the scene when the" 
operation was still on, and also had allowed the 
other Magistrates, except SDM, Nuh, accompanying 
the police party to return to their posts before the 
K? <fo£ p< ; ratlc \ n was included. Shri Tek Chand 
Sf- S?'i ,a ?' how c ver > disputed the .statement of 
Shn Miglani that the police, on their own, were' 
taking steps for motivating the people for sterilisa- 
tion. _ According to Shri Tek Chand, this family 
panning work was done by the Revenue officials 
at the instance of the District Magistrate and the 
police had nothing to do with it. 

17.123 Notices under Rule 5(2) fa) of the 

&S B m ^ a^ 1 ** - R - les and summons under 
lection SB of the Commissions of Inquiry Act were 

issued to the IGP, Haryana, Shri S. S. Bajwa D? s ! 

tact Magistrate of Gurgaon, Shri M. K. Miglani, and 

Senior Supdt. of Police of Gurgaon, Shri Tek Cha^d 

Tvln^ Ti ubnUtted their statements and also 
avaied of the opportunities given to them for 
explaining their defence. 

17.124 Shri Bajwa has urged before the 
Commission that his participation and involvement 
m providing the additional force in conducting the 
raid on the village Uttawar was limited only to the 
extent of the recovery of the arms alleged to have 
been hidden in the village by the miscreants and the 



33 



arrests of persons allegedly involved in the cases 
that were pending against them on the police books. 
He, however, has not been able to explain as to how 
he could limit. his interests only to the recovery of 
arms and arrests of some individuals when the 
report given to him personally by the SSP, Shri Tek 
Chand, on October 26, 1976 at Madhuban, where 
he had met him, contained several specific references 
to the family planning and its implications in the 
raid on the village cf Uttawar contemplated by the 
District authorities. Even when he had received 
the consolidated final message after the raid from the 
Senior Superintendent of Police regarding the num- 
ber of people arrested, the nature and type of 
weapons recovered and the number of people 
sterilised, he does not seem to have taken any action 
against the Police in connection with the mass 
sterilisations that had followed the raid. The Com- 
mission is not prepared to accept the version of 
Shri Bajwa to the effect that he was not aware of the 
family planning import of the raid and that he had 
taken no steps calculated to facilitate the promotion 
of the family planning programme. AH indications 
oh the basis of oral and documentary evidence are 
that Shri Bajwa was fully aware of what was intended 
and did happen and agreed with the consequential 
actions that followed the .raid, The Commission 
accepts his plea that he had been rendered consider- 
ably ineffective even in the handling of his officers 
'as it emerges from the letter that he had received 
from the Home Secretary to the Government of 
Haryana and which was produced by him before 
the Commission. The Commission would like to 
observe that it may not be expected on the one hand 
the leadership of a Force to function effectively if, 
on the other, steps are also taken by the Government 
to undermine the leadership. 



17.125 The Commission has taken into account 
the explanations offered by Shri Miglani, He appears 
to have used his position as the Head of the District 
to order the disconnection of the electric supply 40 
the village which stands proved on the basis of the 
contemporaneous record maintained by 'Shri 
Ttsvatia. There is no reason to. doubt the veracity 
of this documentary evidence. Shri Miglani was as 
much a party to the raid as the others were and to 
everything else that flowed from it. His plea that 
the sterilisations were subsequent to his leaving the 
scene and against his express disapproval does not 
appear to be true considering the various factors 
that have come on record. It is not believable that 



as things were in Haryana during the emergency, 
sterilisation of such a large number of persons 
rounded up after the raid of the village during which 
raid the District Magistrate himself- was present, 
could have taken place without the previous know- 
ledge and concurrence of 1 the District Magistrate. 
Shri Miglani was interested in fulfilling the family 
planning target that had been set for him from tne 
State HQ. The raid on the village followed by the 
bulk sterilisation must indeed have been a very 
welcome addition to his family planning effort. 

17.126 Shri Tek Chand, as the SSP, Gurgaon 
was an active participant in the events leading to the 
raid and following it. The FIR recorded on Octo- 
ber 12, 1976 in Police Station Hathin was a prelude 
to thje raid that was planned ; and as the SSP of the 
District he must have knbwn its full implications. 
His explanation that the sterilisations that followed 
the raid were at the instance of the District Magis- 
trate alone and he himself had no hand in it does 
not appear to be credible. The villagers of Uttawar 
were carried to the sterilisation centre in trucks 
under police escort. 

17.127 In the view Of the Commission there is 
no doubt that the three officers were privy to the 
raid which was planned to overcome the opposition 
of the inhabitants of the village and to bring them 
within the fold of the family planning programme. 
None of them stood to gain personally in these ope- 
rations which were planned at the behest of the 
higher authorities. These officers were powerless to 
resist the express wishes of the Government of the 
time. The Commission, therefore, takes a lenient 
view of the matter as far as the officers themselves 
are concerned. This is, however, not to minimise 

'\^'^kviiY'znd r 'M^^^^'^^-t was done to the 
people of the village both in terms of the raid, the 
sterilisation and the cutting off of electricity. It- may 
be said in passing that the large concentration of 
power in the hands Of the District Magistrate and 
the Sub Divisional Officers with regard to the career 
prospects of officials belonging to the other Depart- 
ments, insofar as these were" governed by^ the 
favourable confidential reports of the District 
Magistrates and Sub Divisional Officers on the work 
and conduct of these officials, appears to have been" 
in no small measure responsible for the willingness 
of a large body of officials to carry out improper or 
unauthorised directions emanating from the District 
and Sub Divisional authorities. 



CHAPTER XVIII 



Abuse of authorily-complaints on service matters including premature retirements, 
removal from service and supersession during Emergency 



dismissals/ 



18.1 One of the terms of reference of the- Com- 
mission is to look into the cases of misuse of autho- 
rity and abuse of power. This is in the nature of 
a very wide-ranging and omnibus term of reference 
under which many items can be indisputably fitted. 

18.2 Some of the cases of a general nature 
falling under this category and which the Commission 
felt, would evoke a nation-wide interest, have been 
heard and the Commission's findings have been set- 
down in appropriate. Chapters. One aspect of the 

?SJS A au f hQr,ty and misuse of P° wer - which ^d 
evoked the largest number of complaints, deals with 

the treatment meted out to public servants in so far 
as it related to their service conditions generally 
and with particular reference to their summary dis- 
missal, compulsory/premature retirements and 
supersessions. In view of the number of complaints 

SK e S° m taken by the different Minis- 
2SiSlf^S Governments vis-a-vis their respective 
employees, the Commission has thought it fit to 

meters broad ****** in tha * beha * £ 

18.3 The rules governing the question nf nr? 
mature retirement from service of publk servant 
as they stood before the emergency, empoweSThe 
Government to retire prematurely Government 
Servants holding Class I & n post!, at S^SEtf 

SfS S a h ,e S nf h °^ ding QaSS IIX P° StS ^ShS 

posts, at the age of 55 years or on completion of 
30 years service whichever was earlier, by Sving 

To metntTnv" £■•? m ° mhS ' Pay fa lIeu thereof 
RahS ?55 ?• t M y a rbitraiy use of the powers, the 
M"^ had ] * the instructions issued from 
time to time, recommended the appointment of 
Screening Committees for different grades to Seen 

KtoFSS kaSt 6 months before *» dale of S 
£££»!* the f P onceTne d Government Servant for 

fS^S^L^T* 6 ReVieWiD S Com nnV ■ 
tees were also directed to be constituted to consirfpr 
appeals of government employees aSS 
of premature retirement. The guidelines suaSsted 
for Screening Committees laid down that the ^criteria 
for reeommending premature retirement of Govern- 
mentServants should relate to doubtful inteSIy Sf 
the employee concerned and/or. meffectivS or 
5SSS5? ° f Th" e T Pl ° ye f- S f0r thfofficfthe ; 
ment ^pfoyee? 6 in \&f ^tef ITST 
conformed to the Central Gov? rulfs br ° adly 



34 



mentioned instructions and urged upon all the 
Ministries and Departments to enforce those 
instructions strictly, in view of the imperative need 
to improve the efficiency in all government offices. 
The State Governments were also advised similarly 
vide 0.0- letter No. 2501 3/6/75-Estt. (A) dated 
11-7-1975 issued by the Department of Personnel & 
Administrative Reforms. Quarterly returns were 
prescribed for reporting on action taken for retiring 
the government servants who had outlived their 
utility and who were of doubtful integrity. This 
subject came up for discussion in the Conference 
of Chief Secretaries held on 7th and 8th May, 1976 
where it was emphasised that the Government should 
have powers to retire in public interest an officer 
with stained record or reputation or efficiency with- 
out having to wait for the then prevailing unduly lone 
minimum age of service. 

.18.5 During the period of emergency, accord- 
ing to the information so far received from the 
Central Government Departments and the State 
Governments as many as 25,962 public servants and 
employees in the Public Sector Undertakings were 
prematurely retired. Though the Commission 
has not been able to ascertain the figures under ■ 
this head over the previous years, there is no doubt 
that the figures of premature retirement during the 
emergency reached an all time high level. 

18:6 Since 4,232 complaints under this head 
were received by the Commission, it was decided 
that the Commission should address all the Chief 
Secretaries of State Governments and Secretaries 
to the Ministries on the subject. Accordingly, 

5 ,0 \!£S-, No - R 15 °20/10/77-Coord/SCI i 
V 15020/11/77-Coord/SCI dated the 25th 
August, 1977, from the Secretary of the Com- 
mission were issued to all concerned. The letters 
suggested the setting up of panels to review 
all such cases in an effort to ensure that 
^sfice d one if an ?' to an y of th e employees 
should be undone and to send a report on the 
action taken to the Commission. Besides the 
secretary of the Commission had also visited various 
Mate Capitals and in the course of his discussions 
had impressed on the Chief Secretaries the need' 
for ensuring that the members nominated on the 
proposed Review Committees/Panels, should not 
oe those who were associated earlier with the 
decision relating to premature retirements summary 
dismissals etc. The review undertaken by the State 
Governments and Ministries were not to be confin- 
ed only to the specific complaints but was intended 
to be a total review of all the cases coming under 



■'nWBaaiffti&tiS^DhrsBi 



BBiaffi^t^j^y^^j a^aai^^ 



35 



that category. Subsequently, State Governments/ 
Ministries were requested to send us information 
showing the total number of cases in this category, 
cases reviewed, cases in which orders were reversed 
and the number of ..cases- pending- review. The State 
Governments who . appointed panels or reconstitut- 
ed committees to review the cases as suggested by 
'the Commission are named below : 



Table I 



SI. No. Name of the State 



1. 


Assam 


2. 


Bihar 


3. 


Gujarat 


4. 


Haryana 


5. 


Himachal Pradesh 


6. 


Madhya Pradesh 


7. 


Manipur 


8. 


Meghalaya 


9. 


Nagaland ! = 


10. 


Rajasthan 


11. 


Orissa 


n. 


Tamil Nadu 


13. 


Uttar Pradesh 


14. 


Andaman & Nicobar Islands 


15. 


Dadra & Nagar Haveli 


16. 


Pondicherry 


17. 


Goa, Daman & Diu 


18. 


Mizoram 



Other State Governments took up through- normal 

channels. Some State Governments also issued 
general orders for reinstatement of employees of 
■certain categories. 



18.7 In regard to the Ministries of Central 
Government, the Ministry of Home Affairs have 
informed the Commission that the policy as approv- 
ed by the Cabinet inter alia provides that . repre- 
sentations from those who had been removed/pre- 
maturely retired during the emergency, would be 
specially looked into to ensure that over-rigorous 
standards were not applied in the case of all those 
who had been retired on grounds of ineffectiveness 
and the retirement was not resorted to as a measure 
of political vendatta. In cases where representa- 
tions against premature retirement had been dis- 
posed_ of during the emergency, a further repre- 
sentation would be entertained so that the matter 
could be considered afresh. It was further decided 
that the members of the Committee, who consider- 
ed the representations against premature retire- 
ment should be different from the members of the 
Committee on the basis of whose recommendations 
premature retirement was ordered in the first place. 

.18.8 Rules and guidelines relating to premature 
retirement were reviewed by the Central Govern- 
ment after the emergency. It is learnt that the pro- 
visions of the Central Government Rules as existed 
before emergency remain unaltered but certain 
modifications have been made in the guidelines. 

18.1? Pursuant to the request made by the 
Commission to State Governments and Central 
Ministries and the instructions/Orders consequently 
issued by the Central Government and the State 
Governments, review of premature retirements have 
been completed In large number of cases. According 
to the information received so far from various 
authorities, the orders of premature retirement have 
been reversed in 14,187 cases against the total num- 
ber of 25,962 cases of premature retirements. Detail- 
ed information in regard to the result of review of 
these cases is given in the following table : 



1 


.... 


Table IT 












' Name of State/UT Admn/Central Govt. 


' No.bf cases 


Cases reviewed 


Cases in which 


Cases pending 


Remarks 










orders were v 


review 














reversed or 
















reversal of orders 










■ 






recommended 








1 


2 




3 


"4 




5 


6 


Andhra Pradesh . . . 


464S 




4175 


4135 




473 


Position as on 
1-6-78 


Assam ..... 


335 




190 


74 




145 


- 


'. **Bihar ..... 


JM51 




763 


266 




Nil 




Gujarat ..... 


: 682 




■ * 


56 




* 




Haryana 


57 




* 


Nil 




57 




**Himachal Pradesh . 


109 




34 


9 




33 




**Jammu & Kashmir . 


88 




14 


6 




73 




**Karnataka ... 


779 




167 


11 




391 




Kerala ..... 


71 




69 


62 




2 




**Madhya Pradesh 


2819 




2519 


794 




Nil' 




"""Maharashtra 


3613 




3530 


2272 




33 




*+Manipur , . ; . 


9 




Nil 


Nil 




1 




** Meghalaya . . 


14 




Nit 


Nil 




6 




Nagaland .... 


43 




43 


9 




Nil 




Orissa ... . . 


643 




643 


394 




Nil 





36 



I 


2 


Punjab . 


664 


Rajasthan 


3087 


**Sikkim .. . 


5 


**Tamil Nadu . 


651 


Tripura , > ' . 


25 


**Uttar Pradesh . 


521 


West Bengal . ... 


* 


XJTAdmns 




Andaman & Nicobar Islands 


48 


Arunachal Pradesh . 


U 


**Chandigarh 


6 


Dadra&N.H. . . ■ . 


1 


Delhi . . 


52 


Goa, Daman & Diu .... 


19 


Lakshadweep . 


Nil 




Nil 



Pondicherry .... . . 31 

**Ministries/Deptts. of Government of India 5477 

Grand Total 25962 



594 

3059 

Nil 

270 

25 

334 



40 
14 

5 
1 

23' 

19 

Nil 

'" ' Nil 
7 

* 

16538 



453 

2193 

Nil 

64 
9 

38 



18 

Nil 

4 

Nil 
6 
5 

Nil 

Nil 

2 

3307 

14187 



70 




28 




Nil 
30 


Gazetted officers 
only 


Nil 




134 





Nil 

Nil 

Nil 

Z 

Nil 

Nil 

Nil 

2 

Nil 

1488 



Notes: 1. Asterisk (*) denotes that the information asked for has not been received. 

2. The information relating to Ministries/Departments of the Government of India is based on the reply toILok Sabha Starred 
Question No. 594 dated 5-4-1978 by the Ministry of Home Affairs. 

„ 3. Double asterisk (**) denotes that these States have confined their review only to the cases in which representations were 
received by the authorities. 



18.10 Immediately after proclamation of emer- 
gency certain organisations . including the Rashtriya 
Swayam Sevak Sangh, Jamait-E-Islami, An and Marg 
and CP(ML) were banned under the provisions 
of Rule 33 of the Defence and Internal Security of 
India Rules 1971, by Government of India, This 
was followed by an advice from the Government cf 
India to all Ministries/Departments- that employees 
who were found to have connections with the banned 
organisations were liable to be dealt with suitably 
under departmental proceedings and in appropriate 
cases action could also be considered against them 
under proviso (c) of clause 2 of Article 311 of the 
Constitution, This therefore, led to dismissal of 
Government employees both under the Central Gov- 
ernment and State Governments, who were suspect- 
ed' to have continued their connections with the 
banned organisations or : who were detained under 
MISA etc. It also appears that the provision under 
the rules for termination of services were taken 
advantage of in various Public Sector Undertakings 
and other Government organisations for easing out 
temporary employees without taking recourse to 



disciplinary proceedings. The information so far 
collected from the Ministries and State Govern- 
ments show that during this period as many as 
4,534 employees were removed from service. 

18.1 1 Ban on the above-mentioned organisations 
was removed after revocation of the emergency. In 
the policy directive issued by the Government of 
Ma, "Department of Personnel and Administrative 
Reforms, all the Ministries were advised to review 
the cases of employees dismissed or removed from 
service during the internal emergency, under proviso 
(c) o'f Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. Subse- 
quent to the issue of the above-mentioned directive 
and the request made by the Commission to all the 
Ministries and State Governments 1,885 employees 
have since been_ taken back in service as per the 
information received so far from concerned quarters. 
Detailed position regarding the result of review of 
these cases which also includes cases of dismissal as 
a; result of disciplinary proceedings in respect of 
some States arid Ministries is indicated in the 
following table : — 









Table III 








Name of State/UT Admn./Central 
Government 


No. 


of cases 


Cases reviewed 


Cases in which 
orders were 
reversed or re- 
versal of orders 
recommended 


Cases pending 
review 


Remarks 


1 





2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


Andhra Pradesh . . 


Nil 


Nil 


Nil 


Nil 


■ 


Assam . . . ■ . 




315 


135 


104 


!80 




Bihar . . . 




Nil 


Nil 


Nil 


Nil 




Gujarat 




Nil 


Nil 


Nil 


Nil 




Haryana ...... 




41 


5 


5 


36 





37 



1 


T 


3 


4 


5 


6 


Himachal Pradesh 


Nil* 


-Nil 


Nil 


Nil 




Jammu & Kashmir 






13 


13 


Nil 


Nil 




Karnataka 






Nil 


Nil 


Nil 


Nil 




Kerala 






Nil 


Nil 


Nil 


Nil' 




**Madhya Pradesh 






- 58 


47 


46 


7 




**Maharashtra , ■ 






1113 


* 


7 


Nil 




Manipur . 






Nil 


Nil 


Nil 


Nil 




**Megbalaya . 






7 


Nil 


Nil 


3 




Nagatand . . 






* 


* 


* 


* 




Orissa 






1 


Nil 


Nil 


1 




Punjab 






5 


4 


4 


1 


i 


Rajasthan . 






30 


* 


3 


* 




Sikkim 






Nil 


Nil 


Nil 


Nil 




Tamil Nadu 






2 


■7 





■ Nil 




Tripura 






* 


* 


* 


* 




Uttar Pradesh 


. . 


in 


11 


8 


100 




West Bengal 




* 


* 


* 


* 




U.T. Admns 












Andaman & Nicobar Islands 


Nit 


Nil 


Nil 


Nil 




Arunachal Pradesh 


l 


Nil 


Nil 


1 




Chandigarh ... 


2 


2 


2 


Nil 




Dadra&N.H 


Nil 


Nil 


Nil 


Nil 




""♦Delhi 


70 


21 


13 


10 




Goa, Daman & Din .- . 


9 


9 


Nil 


Nil- 




Lakshadweep . . 


Nil 


Nil 


Nit 


Nil 




Mizoram . . , ■ . 


Nil 


Nil 


Nil 


Nil 




.Pondicherry ..... 


Nil 


Nil 


Nil 


Nil 




Ministries & Departments of Government 












of India . 

Grand Total . 




2756 


2592- 


1691 


7 






4534 


2842 


1885 


346 




Nates-— 1. Asterisk (" 


') denotes that the informat 


ion asked for has not' been rece 


siyed. ..... 







Double asterisk (**) denotes that these States have confined their review to the cases in which representations were received 
by the authorities. 

Total of column 3 and 5 docs not tally with figures in column 2 as the reviews in many States and Ministries have been con- 
fined to the cases in which representations were received by the authorities. 



.1 8.12 According to the information so far receiv- 
ed from the concerned quarters, the total number 
of employees both in the -Central Government .and 
the State Governments affected by supersession 
comes to 8367. The reports received reveal that 
by end large supersessions were caused on the basis 



of the recommendations of the Departmental Pro- 
motion Committees. As a result of the reviews 
made by the authority on the request of the Com- 
mission in 72 cases orders have been reversed. The 
detailed position regarding the result of review of 
cases is indicated frY the following table : 



Table IV 



Name of State/UT Admn Central Govt. 



No. of cases 



Cases reviewed 



Cases in which 
orders were 
reversed or re- 
versal of orders 
recommended 



Cases pending 

review 



Remarks 



1 



4 



Andhra Pradesh 
Assam ' . 
Bihar . 

Gujarat 
Haryana 

Himachal Pradesh 
Jammu & Kashmir 
Karnataka , 
Kerala 

**Madhya Pradesh 
Maharashtra 



Nil 


Nil 


Nil 


Nil 


17 


* 


* 


17 


Nil 


Nil 


Nil 


Nit 


155 


Nil 


Nil 


155 


Nil 


toil 


Nil 


Nit 


* 


* 


# 


* 


24 


13 


Nil 


Nil 


Nil 


Nil 


Nil 


Nil 


109 


10 


1 


39 


7016 


Nil 


Nil- ■ 


Nil 



.S/25 HA/78— 6 



■ 

■ ' ■ ■■' ■■■. - ■■ 

• 


! 

1 • 

! 
I 


38 






, 


i * 


2 


3 


4 ' 


5 6 


Manipur . . 


Nil 


Nil 


Nil 


Nil . 


1 Meghalaya .... 


Nil. 


Nil 


Nil 


Nil 


| Nagaland . 


* 


* 


'*. 


* 


1 Orissa 


I 


* 


* 


* 


1 Punjab . . ... 


89 ■ 


58 


31 


->7 


**Rajastbah . . 


536 


3 


3 


Nil 


Sikkim 


* 


* 


* 




Tamil Nadu . 


' Nil 


Nil 


Nil 


Nil 


Tripura .... 


* 


* 


* 




**Uttar Pradesh . 

West Bengal .... 


89 
* 


72 

* 


32 

* 


Nil 

* 


U.T. Admns 










Andaman & Nicobar Islands . 


Nii 


Nil 


Nil 


Nil 


Arunachal Pradesh 






. Chandigarh .... 


Nil 


2 
Nil 


Nil 
Nil 


Nil 
Nil 


Dadra&N.H. 


* 


* 


* 




Delhi 


'■ r 


* 


■* 


# 


Goa, Daman & Diu . 


Nil 


Nil 


Nil 


Nil 


Lakshadweep ... 


* 


* 


• 




Mizoram , 


Nil 


Nil 


Nil 


Nil ' 


Pondicherry 


, + 


* 


* 




Ministries/Deptts. of Government of Ir 
Grand Total 


idia 329 


190 


■ 5 


Nil 


8367 


348 


72 


238. 


Notes:— 1. Asterisk '(*) denotes tha 


t the information asked for has not been received 




2. Double asterisk (**) denot 
by the authorities. 


es that these States have confined their review 


to the cases in 


which representations were received 



— «^^^i^^^ 



18.13 Commission had also along side extended 
Us attention to getting a fresh review of some other 
service matters done through the State Governments/ 
Ministries of Central Government in an effort to 
see how much of the wrong if any alleged by the 
complainants during the emergency could be un- 
done: Accordingly the Commission had addressed 
various State Governments and the Ministries "of 
the Government of India to restore to the incum- 
bents, arrears of pay wherever the same may have 
fallen due because of their failure to fulfil the stipu- 
lations of the authorities in connection with the 
,1 «X Piannm g drive vide letter No. SC/FP/T- 
4/1/77 dated August 8, 1977. 

, 18.14 It is very gratifying to note that the res- 
ponse to these requests of the Commission from 
State Governments/Ministries of the Government 
ol India, has been of a positive and helpful nature 
A large number of employees have got back. their 
dues and quite a few of them have been re-instated 
as the table given above would show 



18.15 The review of the compulsorily retired 
and dismissed cases of employees was done by 
certain State Governments through Judges' certain 
others through Cabinet Committees and yet some 
others through Committees of senior officials The 
Commission has no reason to doubt that such of 
the people whom it lias not been uossibfe to take 
back in service, must be cases in' which nothin* 
more can be done because of. the inherent weak- 
nesses ot the case themselves. This review under- 
taken by the State Governments/Ministries would 
by themselves dispose of a very large number of 
complaints received by the Commission and which 
might have got categorised as III, IV and V In 
the process, cases of many persons affected 'but 
who may not have chosen to complain have' also ' 
received a second look with whatever benefits that 
might have conferred on the concerned individuals 
These various steps adopted by the Commission" 
must have taken care or a very large number of 
complaints falling under the category of abuse of 
authority and misuse of powers. 



CHAPTER XIX 
Arrests and detentions during the Emergency 



Introduction 

19.1 The Maintenance of Internal Security 
Act was passed by the Parliament in the year 1971. 
The Statement of Objects and Reasons as presen- 
ted before the Lok Sabha on June 3, 1971, by the 
then Minister in the Ministry of Home Affairs, 
Shri K. C Pant read as below : — 

"In view of the prevailing situation in the 
country and developments across the 
, border, there is need for urgent and 
effective preventive action in the interest 
of national security. It is, therefore, con- 
sidered essential to have power of preven- 
tive detention to deal effectively with the 
threats to the defence of India and to the 
security of India, specially from external 
sources, espionage activities of foreign 
agents. Since existing laws available to 
deal with the security have not been found 
to be adequate, the Maintenance of 
Internal Security Ordinance, 1971, has 
been promulgated. It is now proposed to 
replace the Ordinance by an Act.' 



SdA 
K. C. PANT" 

19,2 Though from the Statement of Objects it 
appeared that the unusual power of preventive 
dentehtion was being sought by the Government 
primarily for dealing effectively with threats to the 
defence of India from external sources and espion- 
age activities of foreign agents, with- particular 
reference to Bangladesh affairs, Members of almost 
all Opposition Parties were unanimous in voicing 
their deep concern against the Government assum- 
ing such wide powers through this Bill. Below are 
a few extracts from the speeches made in the Lok 
Sabha by some Opposition Members : — 

"SHRI ATAL BEIIARI VAJPAYEE 
(June 16, 1971) translated from Hindi : 
"This is the beginning of a police State 
and a blot 'On democracy. It is the first 
step towards dictatorship... These powers 
will not be used against foreign spies but 
aeainst political opponents," 

"SHRI JYOTIRMOY BASU (June 16. 
1971): "The Prime Minister... has 
advisers into whose hands she is playing 
to consolidate her position and to keep 
herself in power and" to perpetuate the 
continuous political blackmail. . . This is a 
semi-fascist method of keep herself and 
her party perpetually in power." 



"SHRI AMRIT NAHATA (June 17, 

1971) : " This bill when enacted will 

create far more difficulty because the 
persons .... who would be entrusted with 
vast powers would harass the people far 
more than what they have already done.*' 

"SHRI KRISHNA MENON (June 17, 
1971) : "....and! here we are arming 
the Executive with every power that is 
required to exercise quasi-judicial func- 
tions without any way of checking it. This 
is unguided, unrestrained, uncontrolled, 
undirected arbitrary power, This is the 
beginning of the fascist rule." 

"SHRI L. K. ADVANI (June 18, 1971) 
in Rajya Sabha : "I assure you that this 
Preventive Detention Law or MISA will 
b2 used against Shri Morarjee Desai, 
Shri Shyam Dhar Mishra and Shri 
Gurupadswamy . " 

"SHRI PILOOiMODl (June 16, 1971) : 
"I am more than ever convinced that this 
Government arid this Party cannot be 
entrusted with the powers that it is 

demanding today If you were to 

read the history as to how democratic 
movements have grown throughout the 
century, it has been by this one principle 
of Habeas Corpus that all democratic 
societies are evolved. What does this Bill- 
do?...... It snuffs out Habeas Corpus in 

the middle of 20th century after 25 years 
of Independence ..... To deny this coun- 
try Habeas 'Corpus is to rejuvenate the 
Star Chamber i li,\V. without Habeas Cdrpus 
there is no 'democracy." 

"SHRI FRANK ANTHONY (June 17, 
1971) : "I know, the District Magistrates 
in Delhi do not take the trouble to write 
an order. The liberty of the Indian citizens 
is not worth a written order. Now what 
has the District Magistrate to do ? All he 
has to do is to merely use one line. In 
my opinion in order to maintain the 
security of the State, Mr .... your name 
may be there, Sir, if you are sitting in the 
Opposition, ... should be detained." He 
may add another line that 'no facts are 
being given in the public interest." But he 
will not disclose any facts. The matter is 
completely sealed, the courts are comple- 
tely ousted." 

"SHRI SOM NATH CHATTERJEE 

(June 17, 1971): "It is. a shameless 

exhibition of hunger and greed for more 



39 



power They are taking upon their hands 

wilw * Act * this P iece of legislation 
which does not provide even the sem- 
blance of security to an individual in this 
country. In the name of refugee influx 
m the name of the security of the State 
which all remain undefined, this power 
has been given in the hands of an ordinary 
P u I J> ureaucr at who is prone to act at 
trie behest of the party in power." 

'wn ^ K " ^S^AN (June 25, 
if } ' , experience has amply proved 
that such sweeping draconian powers in 
the hands of the bureaucracy, have been 
used for 20 years and naturally will be 
used, not against anti-national elements 
at tfte top but against political workers 
agamst trade union workers. ... We say 
that these powers are going to be used not 
against really people who endanger the 

security of this country but against politi- 
cal workers, against trade union leaders." 
''SHRr SHAMIM AHMED SHAMIM 
(June 17 1971) : "The provision for an 
Advisory Board is being presented to us 
on a platter. We say that these Advisory 
Boards will be of no effect because you 
have deprived them of the very process of 
law, the legal process which is the basis 
or our administration and justice." 

"f™ SHYAM .NANDAN MISHRA 
iSmc 17, 1971): «I would like to say 
that even important instruments like the 
CBI are being used for partisan purposes. 
Recently there had been a great furore in 
one of the State Legislatures that CBI was 
being used to shield party men or cronies 
of the ruling Party and to victimise its 
opponents. The charge related to no less a 
person than the Prjme Minister of 
India " 

■w 19 i? ■ T ?> a S a y the apprehensions expressed bv 
Members of Opposition Parties, the Minister in the 

gave the assurance that MISA will not be iiirf 
against political parties and enough safeguards had 
been incorporated in the bill to prevent fs misuse 
He emphasised that the; power of detention bv a 
subordinate authority was limited to 12 days only 
and thereafter the detention would require confirms 
ton by the Advisory Board. The rig? of the S 

' Skef awaHnT ° f ^ ^T was aIso ^ 
cm? 7* his rep] y to the debate in Raiva 

Sabha on June 29, 1971, he said, "I can al so assure 
that anyone functioning, in accordance wft th law 

mental KfrST * * '«*** in a ^rmove" 
ponacai activny has nothing to fear from thk 
SKto Wl* ^ * again said" in 'the 
wfi ™m * u l j a S F 10US assurance that this 
bill wiU not be used against legitimate trade un on 
activities or legitimate political activity." ' 

«f \l A A U thSSe Solemn assur ances given on behilf 
of the Government were totally belied. Soon after '■ 



40 



w,rP »n If -Z f Eraer ^ nc y. District Magistrates 
were authorised to pass order of detention on satis- 
faction reached by them. In the States in which the 
Commissioner of Police was ex-officio a Magistrate 
the Commissioner of- Police- became automatically 
invested with authority to pass order of detention. 
After the proclamation of the state of emergency bv 
the President on June 25, 1975, the MISA, 1971 

jifn/9 n Q e i Q 7< by ***&*&* Ordinances, dated 
June 29, 1975 and July 15, 1975. These two 
Ordinances were converted into Maintenance of 
J™ Security (Amendment) Act No. 39 of 
1975 on August 5, 1975. The main amendment was 
intended to introduce Section 16A and Section 18 
m^the^MISA. The effect of these amendment was 

(i) The new Section 16A contained' special 
provisions for dealing with the emergency 
The provisions of the existing MISA 
regarding communication of grounds of 
detention to the detenu and functioning 
'<, ?L tiae Adv] sory Boards (Sections. 8 to 

12) were made inapplicable to persons 
detained under Section 16A for effectively 
dealing with the Emergency. Instead the 
Mate Governments were given the powers 
to review the detentions within 4 months 
of the date of detention and thereafter at 
intervals not' exceeding 4 months. 

(ii) The new Section 18 read "No person 
{including a foreigner) detained under 
his Act shall have any right to' personal 
liberty by virtue of natural law or ' 
common law, if any." 

19 5 Other amendments to the MISA were 

H I e 97. y P f S i dentia I <**"***. dated Oct^b 
*/» 1975 and November 16 1975 wfcrVh ,~, 

(E b> ^ MabtouS'of InSna^ecur ; 
AmendmenO Act No. 14 .of 1976, on January 25, 
/f:, Tta amendments,.*) Section 16A provided 
tlia fie appropriate government or officer may act 
on the basis of information, and materials in L or 
anv^T'T mt $° Ut com ^nicating or disclosing 

coLernt 1 ^^ 10 ^ 311 ^- materiaI t0 the P ers ^ 
concerned oi affording him any opportunity of 

making any representation. ' [Section 3 6A (5) ] 

aJ?'$ Se . condi y> to grounds on which an order of 
detention is made and any information or material 
on which such ground's are based shall be treated as 
confidential and shall be. deemed, to refer toSeS ■ 
of State and to be against public interest to £ 
C10se - [Section I.6A(9)(a)] 

nf X aJ T hird .^' no P ers <> n against whom any order 
of detention is made shall be entitled to the com- 
munication or disclosure of any such ground 
information or material: ' [Section -16A(?)(b)j 

19.8 These amendments, completely mer»m«r 
Phosed the character of MISA. The princSa X" 
guards against the abuse or misuse TrneeSra 
ordinary powers of preventive detention conferred 
on the Government and its subordinate officers a * 
enacted in the original Act were (i) scmSy 'the 



41 



detenu's case ' by a quasi-judicial authority, namely, 
the Advisory Board ; (ii) mandatory communica- 
tion of full grounds of detention to the detenu 
normally within 5 days of his detention ; and in 
exceptional circumstances within 15 days ; (iii) the 
right of the detenu under natural law or common 
law to move the High Court in a writ of Habeas 
Corpus against the order of detention passed against 
him. These three main safeguards and other minor 
ones were totally withdrawn by introduction of 
Section 16A and Section 18 in the MISA. 

19,9 The freedom of the executive from all 
restraints of judicial scrutiny led directly to the 
large scale abuse of authority and misuse of powers 
during the emergency. 

"19:10 The purpose for which MISA could be 
used to detain a person was laid down in Section 
3(1) of the Act. This was never amended during 
the period of the emergency and the amendments 
incorporated during emergency never gave any 
licence to the. detaining authority not to record the 
grounds of detention against a person or to detain 
anyone on grounds other than those covered by 
Section 3(1) of the Act. or to pass orders of deten- 
tion - on palpably inadequate or on flimsy grounds. 
But during the period of emergency, a large number 
of persons all over the country was detained often 
without any satisfaction of the authority and without 
any grounds and their detentions were confirmed 
by the State Governments. Sometimes the grounds 
were inadequate or irrelevant. 

19.11 Under the amended provisions of the 
MISA, the order of detention passed' by the DM 
was required to be reviewed within 15 days for con- 
firmation or revocation, by' the State Government. 
This placed a heavy responsibility on the State 
Government to see that detentions were not ordered 
on untenable or irrelevant ground's! 

19.12 The number of cases in which the State 
Government did not confirm the order of detention 
passed by the detaining authority was : Goa nil out 
of 113 ; Tamil Nadu 1 out of 1,027 ; West Bengal 
1 out of 311 ; Haryana 5 out of 200 ; Rajasthan 8 
out of 542 ; Gujarat 188 out of 1,655 ; Maharashtra 
98 out of 5,473 ; Orissa 44 out of 408. These 
illustrative figures, are revealing of the manner in 
which MISA was administered'. According to infor- 
mation furnished by the U.P. Government, out of 
6,956 cases of detention under MISA, in no case 
did the State Government refuse to confirm the 
order of detention. However, a scrutiny of cases has 
-revealed that in a few cases the State' Government 
did refuse to confirm the orders of detention passed 
by the District Magistrates. 

19.13 In some States like U.P., Orissa, Bihar, 
Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat and Karnataka, some 
scrutiny was undertaken by the Home Department 
before submitting the files for final orders. In U.P., 
the files Of detention cases were routed through the 
State Law Department but almost invariably its 
advice regarding inadequacy or irrelevancy of the 



grounds of detention given by the detaining autho- 
rity, was ignored by the State Government and 
orders were confirmed on administrative grounds 
which remained' undefined. In Orissa, Bihar, Karna- 
taka, Andhra and Gujarat also, in most cases, the 
detentions were confirmed even when the inadequacy 
or irrelevancy of the grounds ot detention was 
clearly pointed out by the Home Department. The 
scrutiny was treated as a meaningless formality. In 
effect, there was little dirfrence between the States 
where scrutiny was undertaken at the State level 
and the States in which even this formality was 
dispensed with in continuing the dtention of a 
person. 

19,14 There were cases in practically every State 
of orders passed by the DMs/Police Commissioners 
that suffered' from serious legal flaws. In many cases, 
the detaining authorities failed to send necessary 
documents such as their report under Section 3(3) 
of the MISA or even the grounds of detention, to 
the State Government as required by law. In some 
such cases, the orders were revoked by the State 
Government and in some other cases, the detaining 
authority was asked to revoke the detention orders. 

19.15 The declaration under Section 16A(3) 
of the MISA made by an officer was lequired to be 
reviewed by the State Government within 15 days 
and it was clearly enacted that the declaration shall 
cease to have effect unless it is confirmed by the 
State Government, after such review within 15 days. 
Several cases have come to notice in which the 
District Magistrates failed to send their reports about 
the detention to the State Government within the 
period of 15 days. Such detentions became legally 
invalid on the expiry of the 15 days after the passing 

"of the order of detention . ; But in some " such cases 
the State Governments merely revoked the order of 
detention after the expiry of the statutory period 
of 15 days. The detenu continued under illegal 
detention" from the date of expiry of the period of 
15 days to the date of revocation of the detention 
order. In some cases^ the detaining authority "issued 
fresh detention orders to continue the detention of 
the detenu. 

19.16 Scrutiny of the MISA cases of Assam 
revealed a unique feature relating to the declaration 
under Section 16A. In a few cases of detentions 
ordered by the District Magistrates under Section 
16A, the State Government decided hot to confirm 
the declaration but allowed the detention to conti- 
nue, the operational effect being to convert a deten- 
tion under Section 16A ordered for dealing 
effectively with emergency into a detention under 
the unamended provisions of MISA. Legality of 
such a course of action is open to question, for no 
detention ordered under Section 16A could remain 
valid after 15 days if the declaration made by the 
DM was not confirmed by the State Government. 

19.17 In Himachal Pradesh, the detention orders 
purported to be issued by the District Magistrates 
to effectively deal . with the emergency were not 
accompanied by declaration under Section- 16A- 



which were subsequently issued by the State Govern- 
ment white confirming the detention. The require- 
ment of the MISA that the declaration under 
Section 16A was to be issued by the detaining 
authority simultenously with the detention order 
was. not, therefore, complied' with in such cases. 

19.18 The detentions ordered under MISA 
throughout the country during emergency may be 
broadly classified into four categories: (1) Mem- 
?S S w d ? ssociates of Opposition Political Parties ; 
(2) Members and associates of banned oraanisa- 
l 1 ?? 5 ' v/ *v R sss > JEI, Anand Marg and CPML ; 
CiiJ Criminals ; (4) Anti-social elements and econo- 
mic offenders. The ratio between political and non- 
polmcal detentions varied from State to State. In 
States like U.P., Bihar, Gujarat, Goa and Delhi, 
the criminals and' anti-socials detained under MISA 
far outnumbered those detained for alleged political 
•activities The position ir| Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, 
Kerala, Rajasthan, West Bengal, Himachal Prdesh 
Haryana, Onssa and Andhra Prdesh was the reverse 
In the States of Mad'hya Pradesh and Maharashtra 
where the number of detentions under MISA 
exceeded 5,000, the ratio of political and non- 
pohtical detentions was roughly even Out oE 
approximately 35,000 persons detained under MISA 
t^ r n^ hout the countr y during the emergency, about 
13,000 were those alleged to be connected with 
political parties including the banned organisations. 

19.19 Soon after the declaration of Emergency 
a large number of persons alleged to be members 
or sympathisers of the non-CPl Opposition Parties 
was detained. A large number of detenus in 

ir!? y w P f adesh ' Gu i arat ' karnataka, Rajasthan, 
Delhi, Maharshtra and, to some extent, in Bihar 
and U.P. were members of the Jan Sangh and its 
sympathisers. The Bhartiya Lok Dal Party members 
came in for special attention in Orissa, U.P, and 
Haryana. The Dravida Munetra Kazhagam was the 
subject of a concentrated onslaught in Tamil Nadu 
where more than 400 of its members were detained 
under the MISA out of a total number of 570 
political detentions in that State. 

wtA 9 ', 20 Scrutil W of c a ses of detentions under the 
MISA has revealed- that in a majority of the States 
alarge number of persons belonging to the political 
Opposition Parties were detained on tire ground of 
alleged participation in one or two secret meetings 
m which .imposition of emergency and Government 
policies were opposed or criticised. In a number of 
cases, the District Magistrates passed detention 
orders merely on a single report of the Superinten- 
dent of Police or even a lower functionary in the 
police department stating that the detenu took part 
in a secret meeting in somebody's house on a 
particular day or occasion and criticised the Prime 
Minister and the emergency. In some cases, in 
addition to this, the political activities of the detenu 
at a time far removed from the date of imposition 
of emergency were also set up. In most cases 'they 
were not of a nature as could be termed violent or 
likely to disturb public order in any way. In many 
others, even these activities were also not revealed 
m the grounds. 



42 



19.21 Criticising the Government policies such 
as imposition of levy on foodgrains, food policy 
or educational policy and - similar measures a lone 
time before the declaration of Emergency were ' in 
many cases, considered sufficient for ordering deten- 
tions under MISA. Likewise, criticism of the imposi- 
tion of emergency and of the policies of the Prime 
Minister in secret meetings in someone's house or 
being critical of the Prime Minister or her policies 
a long time before 1975 or shouting of anti- 
emergency slogans was considered' sufficient to 
attract the use of MISA against the person con- 
cerned. In a number of cases these grounds were 
invented to justify detention. 

19.22 In Tamil Nadu, a large number of persons 
were detained simply by mentioning the general 
and vague ground that they belonged to or were 
associated with the Dravida Munetra Kazhagam 
-Party and were rowdies, without mentioning a single 
incident or fact to denote any prejudicial activity 
on. the part of the person detained. In other States 
a S' f" 3 "? detentions of persons with political 
arn.hat.ons were ordered simply on the general 
ground that they belonged to a particular political 
party, and no incident or fact was mentioned in the 
ground's to justify the apprehension that the activi- 
ties of the detenu were prejudicial to the security 
ot the State or public order. In Maharashtra and 
Gujarat, a number of persons allegedly belonging to 
the Jan Sangh were detained in this manner In 
the eastern States of West Bengal and Orissa 
though detentions u/s 16A were comparatively fewer' 
the members of the Communist Party of India 
(Marxist) were detained on such general grounds. 

.19.23 Practice of passing . detention orders 
merely on the ground that the detenu belonged to a 
named banned party or organisation or was sym- 
pathetic towards the party or organisation, was 
followed extensively. In a large number of cases 
the grounds given for detention merely alleged that 
the person concerned was a member or sympathiser 
ot a named banned organisation without mentioning 
any specific activity on his part. In Delhi, Maha- 
rashtra and Gujarat and to a smaller extent in 
Madhya Pradesh and U.P., this practice waS 
followed to detain number of alleged' RSS workers 
and sympathisers, while in Bihar, Orissa and West 
Bengal some alleged Anand Margis were detained 
on similar grounds. The fact that there may have 
been some record of activities in the past of such 
persons with the police, would not alter the 
impropriety of their detention because in these 
cases the subjective satisfaction of the detaining 
authority was only based on a general and vague 
report about the detenu, being associated with the' 
banned organisations, without disclosing any speci- 
fic fact or activity which could be. termed prejudi- 
cial Even as the law: then was, simply being a 
member of a banned* organisation could not render 
a person in law liable to be detained, under the 
mi^a in the absence of any evidence of some 
prejudicial activity on his part. A mere apprehen-- ■ 
sion about his indulging in prejudicial activities in 
future could not be reasonably entertained ' in the 
absence ot some instance of his past" or present 



43 



conduct being disclosed in the grounds. Many such 

* detentions were. bad .in. law -and disclosed a total 

lack of application of mind by the detaining 

authority and the State Government had confirmed 

• such orders of detention. 

19.24 The conclusion is inevitable that after the 
Government of India issued a notification banning 
certain organisations, viz., RSS, JEI, Anand Marg, 
CPML and others, most of the State Governments 
acted almost in a frenzy, detaining persons on the 
slightest suspicion of association with these organisa- 
tions' even though, in many cases, no reasonable 
grounds were available to detain them: In this they 
were being repeatedly goaded by the Government of 
India, who continued to give directives to the States, 
to. launch a vigorous drive against these organisations 
on all fronts. 

19.25 The number of criminals and anti-socials 
detained under MIS A was proportionately quite Iar^e 
nr U.P., Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, 
Bihar and Delhi and the scrutiny of cases in these 
States in particular and other States in general has 
revealed a pattern of large scale indiscriminate and 

■ unjustifiable use of MISA in respect of persons falling 
in this category which will be illustrated by the 
following facts ■:— 

, (i) Persons were detained under MISA for 
alleged criminal activities relating ;to more 
than five years before the detention and 
in several cases the alleged offences men- 
tioned in the grounds pertained to an even 
remoter period dating back up to 1 5. or 20 
years. Such detentions were ordered on a 
larger scale in Gujarat, I.;. P., Bihar and 
Maharashtra. 

(ii> In a large number of cases, the grounds 
: set up for detention only revealed the regis- 
tration of an offence or putting up a charge 
sheet in the court but no previous convic- 
tions could be shown. In man.v cases the 
detenu was : shown as having been acquitted 
by the court m respect of several offences 
yet these were made the grbunds-for detain- 
ing him under the MISA. Mere involve- 
ment in offences, even though he had been 
acquitted by the courts, in a large majority 
of cases was considered sufficient for the 
use of MISA- 

(iii) All kinds of petty criminals, those involved 
m offences under the Excise Act, Prohibi- 
tion Act Gambling Act, Indian Arms Act 
Section 34 Police Act and minor offences 
like ordinary theft, assault, "eve-teasin*" 
criminal trespass, etc., were detained under 
'\*a? rJ° n ? penods in St ates like 
M t hy \ Pra l esh ' U ' P - Bi h*r Gujarat 
Maharashtra Delhi, Andhra Pradesh as 
well as, to a lesser extent, in other States. 

(iv) Even persons involved in a single offence 
albeit a serious one like murder or daccity 
against whom criminal cases were already 



pending in courts w;?re detained under 
MISA, In some cases, detention orders 
were passed against persons already in jail 
awaiting trial for other offences or serving 
jail sentences. 

(v) In Maharashtra, Gujarat and Tamil Nadu, 
persons alleged to have been involved in 
"bottlegging" activities were detained in 
large numbers even if hardly any previous 
conviction could be cited in the grounds. 
in many cases, the grounds only contained 
a general allegation about the detenu being 
a habitual liquor seller operating through 
agents but no previous involvement in any 
criminal offence was mentioned. Matka 
gamblers came for special attention in 
Maharashtra and Goa but here again the 
grounds given were too vague and inade- 
quate to constitute any threat to the 
security of the State or Public Order. 

(vi) By D.O. letter No. U-l6(E)-034/l/75- 
S&P(D.I), dated March 18, 1976, the 
Ministry of Home Affairs directed the State 
Governments to use MISA against habitual 
criminals concerning railway property. It 
was stated in this D.O. letter that isolated 
cases of crime would not make out a 
case for detention under MISA and only 
repeated conduct of a particular type which 
affects either public order or maintenance 
of essential services can constitute a valid 
ground for action under MISA. But in 
pursuance of this directive in many States 
not only habitual criminals but persons in- 
volved in one or two minor offences con- 
cern ing railway property were detained. 
. Instances of this type were quite common 
in U.P., Maharashtra and Gujarat in par- 
ticular. There were cases where even a 
single incident of theft was considered 
sufficient to attract the use of MISA. 

(vii) MISA was used as a weapon against all 
kinds of activities, not even remotely con- 
nected with the security of State, public 
order or maintenance of essential supplies. 
Government servants accused of corruption 
or misbehaviour, petty traders violating 
licensing conditions, persons involved in 
land disputes, contractors supplying inferior 
material for construction works, those con- 
testing Government decisions in a civil 
court, those selling milk and other commo- 
dities at inflated prices, workers in factories 
pressing their demands or criticising the 
management, persons accused (not convict- 
ed) of committing irregularities or defalca^ 
tion i ri cooperative societies and banks 
those not cooperating in family planning 
programme of the Government. or refusing 
to get themselves sterilised— all came with- 
in the all-pervading sweep of the MISA 
Particularly in U.P., MISA was used 
extensively against those alleged to be op- 
posed to family planning or not actively 
cooperating with the programme of family 



44 



planning. Thus, MIS A was used for 
purposes totally beyond the purview of 
Section 3(1) of the Act. 

19.26 Use of MISA against hardened criminals 
involved in serious offences affecting public order or 
supply of essential commodities could probably be 
justified in certain cases but the use of this extra- 
ordinary power of detention against petty offenders 
or persons who were not shown to have indulged in 
any criminal activity for the past four or five years 
or so, or those who could have been effectively 
dealt with under the normal laws" cannot but be 
regarded as unwarranted and unjustified. It appears 
that the Police in most of the States considered the 
amended MISA as an easy way out in dealing with 
the persons against whom they could not secure 
convictions under the normal laws. 

19.27 When the Government of India became 
aware of the indiscriminate use of MISA against 
petty offenders, in a wireless message No. 13512/ 
JS(IS)/75, dated September 10, 1975, sent to all 
State Governments, the Ministry of Home Affairs 
said — 

"Government have in the past noticed some 
instances in certain States that persons 
accused or suspected of offences like thefts 
or receiving stolen property or cheating 
or dealing in illicit liquor, etc., which do 
not impinge the security of State or public 
order, have been detained under MISA. 
Such detentions will not be proper within 

the exsting framework of MISA unless 

person's activities fall within the purview 
of sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of MISA 
a valid detention order cannot be made' 
This position should be correctly under- 
stood and carefully implemented by all 
authorities concerned." 

But these directions of the Government of India 
were not heeded to by a majority of the State Govern- 
ments and detentions of such petty offenders conti- 

J£S 5? m i ad ? e . vei \? fteT receiving these instruc- 
tions particularly in U.P., Maharafhtra, Gujarat 
Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh and to a esser 
extent in other States also. 

19.28 After the imposition of emergency, a num- 
ber of students were detained all ove? the country 
l ney can be classified into two categories : 

(i) Those who were detained due to alleged 
involvement with the Opposition political 
parties like Bhartiya Jan Sangh or the 
banned organisations, particularly the RSS. 

(ii) Those who took a leading part in agitations 
in educational institutions during the pre 
Eff » d we re student leaders even 
though they did not indulge in any political 
activity or were not associated with any 
political activity. \ y 



Many students were.. detained on flimsy grounds 
like creating disturbance in the examination hall, 
misbehaviour with the Principal or taking a delega- 
tion to the college authorities for pressing students' 
demands. Action under MISA was taken against 
them in addition to expulsion from educational insti- 
' tutions and hostels, etc. MISA was used extensively 
against those students who had taken part in student 
agitations in the years prior to 1975. Many students 
were detained for having taken part ill Nav Nirman 
Agitation in Gujarat and JP Movement in Orissa 
and Bihar, in the year 1974 and in many cases, no 
recent agitational activity was mentioned in the 
grounds of detention. [Cases of Shri Rejeev Kumar 
Dubey student of Dis'trict Raipur (MP), Shri Vijay 
Kumar Patil, District Ujjan (MP), Shri -Aditya 
Narain, District Ujjan (MP) and Shri Prakash 
Preshthala, District Rajkot (Gujarat)]. 

19.29 MISA was also used in a majority of the 
States to curb trade union activities. Several workers 
working in factories and trade union leaders were 
: detained on the ground that in the past they had 
participated in agitations against the management. 
There were cases when even a single incident of pres- 
sing the authorities for meeting the demands of 
workers was made the basis of a detention order. .In 
many cases, no concrete facts showing any prejudi- 
cial activity were mentioned in the grounds and only 
vague references were made about the person con- 
cerned, secretly inciting the Workers to agitate for 
their demands. Such cases were found in UP 
Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Orissa and West Bengal 
in. particular. [Cases of Shri Vasudev Shankar Lai 
Joshi and Shri Gunvant Motilal Swami, both of Dis- 
trict Ahmedabad (Gujarat), Shri Nani Gopal Biswas 
of Calcutta, Shri Kamal Mitra of 24-Parganas and 
Shri Subhash Kumar Banerjee of 24-Parganas r West 
Bengal) ■, Shri Bala Prasad Sharma of District Jabal- 
pur and Shri J. P. Pandey, Secretary of All-India 
Postal Employees Union, Jabalpur (MP)]. 

i^tc 9 ; 3 ? 4 nother disturbing feature of the use of 
MISA during the emergency was that in some cases 
detentions were ordered by the detaining authority 
at the behest of some other person or authority 
Jnus the mandatory requirement of the subjective 
satisfaction of the detaining authority in respect of 
the necessity to detain a certain person was violated 
iiyeri though such- orders of detentions stood Ieeallv 
.vitiated ab mitlo, yet victims of such serious illegality 
continued to languish in jails for long periods. 

19.31 Even though the subjective satisfaction of 
he detaining authority is the main requirement under 
the provisions of MISA, the following two basic 
concepts are necessary to be fulfilled— (i)' the sub- 
ffif? 6 s f s ? ctl0n must be of the detaining authority 
■ rtself and of no one else; (ii) such satisfaction mi* 
be real and bona fide. The Supreme Court in the 
case of Shri Khudi Ram Dass Vs: State of Wes? 
Bengal (AIR 1975 SC 550), has given a numbe 
of instances when the so-called subjective satisfaction 
f ^ detaining authority stands vitiated. They 

i( (i) Where the authority has not applied its 
mmd at all. 



45 



<_.=. "■-"vn-fffliTiriratflffil 



(ii) Where the power is exercised dishonestly 
or for an improper purpose, i.e., purpose 
not contemplated by the Statute or where 
the order is passed mala fide. 

(iii) Where the satisfaction is aot the satisfaction 
of the authority itself. 

(iv) Where the satisfaction is based upon the 
application of a wrong test on misconstruc- 
tion of a statute. 

(v) Where the satisfaction is granted on mate- 
rials which are not of rationally probative 
value,- materials which are not relevant to 
the subject matter of the enquiry or extra- 
neous to the scope and purpose of the 
statute, where the satisfaction is arbitrary, 
vague and fanciful." 

19.32 In another case of Shri Jagannath Biswas 
Vs. State of West Bengal (Writ Petition No. 24 of 
1974), the Supreme Court had held that the long 
gap between the occurrence and the order of deten- 
tion would be fatal to the subjective satisfaction of 
the detaining authority. When the detention orders 
passed during the emergency all over the country are 
tested in the light of pronouncements of the highest 
judicial Tribunal, the Commission finds many of the 
detention orders prima facie bad in law and moti- 
vated by considerations divorced from those that 
were in the minds of the framers of the original 
MISA. 

19.33 It is also striking that even after these flaws 
were pointed out by the Home Department or Law 
Department in several States like U.P., Bihar, Orissa, 
Gujarat, they were persistently ignored. It is an in- 
evitable conclusion that these illegal detentions were 
deliberately made by the Governments of the day 
apparently following the cynical approach that it 
did not matter if nine innocent persons languished 
in jail so long as one whose detention was politically 
desirable did not escape. 

„.. 19.34 Examination of instructions and messages 
issued from time to time by the Government of India 
during the period of emergency reveals that the 
emphasis was on a vigorous drive to silence all oppo- 
sition and crush the banned organisations in parti- 
cular in the name of maintenance of law and order 
at all costs and preventing any form of opposition 
to Government policies and actions. However, the 
Prime Minister addressed a D.O. letter No 179- 
PMO/75, dated July 3, 1975, to all Chief Ministers 
stating— 

"As you know, we have recently 
amended the Maintenance of Internal 
Security Act by an Ordinance. This 
amendment gives wide powers to the State 
Governments to detain persons without 
giving them any grounds for their 
detention. Their cases need not even 
be sent to Advisory Boards. 

I am sure you will agree that this power 

ought to be exercised very sparingly and 

with, the greatest of care. The provision in 

the amending Ordinance is that if the 

S/25 HA/78— 7 



detention is made by orders of any officer 
it has to be approved by the State Govern- 
ment within a fortnight of the detention. 
There are also provisions for periodical 

reconsideration of the detention orders. 

Having regard to the nature of the 
powers granted, it is essential that the 
highest authority in the State should 
approve the detentions. I would, there- 
lore, request you to personally look into 
all cases that come under this amending 
Ordinance and all detentions thereunder 
should only be made if they are approved 
by you or, if necessary, by a Ministerial 
Committee appointed by you. 

Similarly, the periodical reconsideration 
of the detentions should also be by such 

a high-powered authority. Let it not be 
said that this amending Ordinance is in 
any way being misused or misapplied. It 
is _ of the essence that the powers under 
this amendment should be used only to 
the extent necessary to meet the situation 
arising out of the emergency." 

Later, the Home Secretary, Government of India 
also sent a D.O. letter No. 11/1601 1/8 1/75-S&P 
(D.II), dated October 10, 1975, to all State Govern- 
ments wherein he referred to the earlier communica- 
tion by the Prime Minister and mentioned — - 

"Different enforcement agencies which 
are responsible for enforcing emergency 
.matters have been armed with numerous 
powers. In the exercise of these powers 
there is obvious scope for harassment of 
innocent persons and law abiding citizens, 
either as 'a result of over-enthusiasm on 
the part of the enforcement officer or on 
account of corrupt considerations involving 
blackmail, extortions, etc. The Prime 
Minister has already written to your Chief 
Minister vide her letter No. 179-PMO/75, 
dated July 3, 1975, about the need to exer- 
cise care in resorting to detentions under 
the amended provisions of the MISA .... 
adequate steps should he taken to mini- 
mise the scope for such malpractices and 
to provide satisfactory mechanism for 
prompt redressal of public grievances as 
well as award of deterrent punishment to 
those found guilty of abusing their official 
authority." 

™J 9 ; 3 A. T . he Prime Mini ster again wrote to theState 
Chief Ministers on July 31, 1976. mentioning that 
reports of harassment-by the police, unimaginative 
handling of situations, cases of wrongful arrests con- 
^ e c !:° c ? me t0 ker notice. She suggested that the- 
Chief Ministers should take personal interest in &t 
matter. From this it is clear that the Prime Minister 
and the Government of India were fully aware alf 
the time that powers under the MISA were beine 
misused m the States on a considerably large scale. 

19-36 It may be recalled here that during the 
Parliamentary debate on MISA Bill in 197L the 



46 



Minister in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Shri K. C. 
Pant had given this categorical assurance in the Lok 
Sabha on June 17, 1971 : "As there is a provision 
that the State Government should report facts to 
the Central Government in respect of orders made 
and approved by them, we would exercise the vigi- 
lance that it is not misused". When during emer- 
gency each case of detention under MISA was being 
reported to them and thousands of citizens were 
. being thrown into jail by indiscriminate and arbitrary 
use of the MISA, no evidence of this promised vigi- 
lance by the Central Government was forthcoming 
save these few communications to Slate Governments 
which remained as incllcctive as the "Papal bull 
against the Comet". 

19.37 Similarly, many State Governments like 
West Bengal, Karnataka, Bihar, Andhra, Gujarat, 
Himachal Pradesh, did issue instructions to their sub- 
ordinate officers to exercise care in the use of MISA 
and make proper scrutiny of the material before de- 
taining any person. But the scrutiny of cases in 
these States as well (with the exception of Himachal 
Pradesh) has shown that these instructions remained 
only on paper and detentions continued to be made 
on no grounds or inadequate or irrelevant grounds 
and were confirmed by the State Governments them- 
selves in violation of their own instructions on the 
subject and the advice of Government of India, 

19.38 It is difficult to accept that in the atmos- 
phere then prevailing in the country, any State Gov- 
ernment would have dared to ignore or bypass the 
advice or instructions of the Prime Minister or the 
Government of India unless they felt assured that 
they would not be taken to task for this lapse. 
Instructions for stricter enforcement of emergency 
were taken far more seriously and at times acted 
upon with an urgency almost bordering on frenzv 
than the advice to use MISA 'sparingly and with 
care". 

19.39 Under Section 16A(iv) of the MISA all 
the cases of detention were required to be reviewed 
every four months by the State Government but 
in most cases the State Government performed this 
uJ lT l-l- same mec hanical manner which they 
riad exhibited m confirming the orders of the deten- 
tion passed by the District authorities. Usually at 
the time of review, a report regarding the desirability 
of release or otherwise of the detenu, was called for 
frorn the District authorities and in some States from 
the Divisional Commissioner also. But it was seen 

hat mostly the District authorities, in their anxiety 
to play safe fought shy of recommending release of 
persons and State Governments also generally did not 
display any liberal attitude towards the release of 
7hl e ™t I Government of India further tightened 
the procedure by advising the State Governments to 
obtain their prior approval before ordering the release 
& de JT- tS? ?° me Secr *ary, Government of 

(D.II), dated January 3, 1976, suggested to all the 
State Governments to obtain the advice of the Central 
Government before releasing a MISA detenu In 
the same D.O. letter he did mention, "It is true that 



this procedure is not a legal requirement but the 
matter has to be viewed in the overall context of 
the emergency". Though this was only an advice 
but in practice it had the effect of an order and State 
Governments started following the practice of refer- 
ring all cases of release of MISA detenus to the 
Central Government from January 1976 onwards. 
Moreover, making a reference to the Ministry of 
Home. Affairs resulted in inordinate delay in the 
release of detenus. There were cases in which the 
Central Government did not agree to release detenus 
even though the State Government felt that their 
detentions were no longer necessary. By these direc- 
tives, the Central Government in an executive man- 
ner, restricted the legal right of the State Govern- 
ments to revoke the orders of detentions passed under 
MISA. 

19.40 The Commission has examined in a general 
way the detentions under the MISA ordered by* the 
detaining authorities under the respective State 
Governments. Notes containing a factual account 

.-of these detentions in each of the States have been 
prepared and are reproduced btlow. This exercise 
which was undertaken by the Commission through 
the officials, is intended primarily to compile and set 
down at one place on the basis of the records of 
the respective State Governments, a factual account 
of the detentions ordered during the emergency by 
the different State Governments as a record of the 
times. The Commission has generally refrained from 
making any observations against any individual func- 
tionary of the State Governments since it has not 
been possible for the Commission to give an oppor- 
tunity to the official concerned to explain -his point 
of view before the Commission. Even so, the facts 
set down, based as they are on the records of the 
Government, are eloquent enough to point out how 
unthinkingly and callously were some of the deten- 
tions ordered at different levels without the sliehrest 
regard for the liberty of an individual. 

ANDHRA PRADESH 

19.41 The total number of detentions ordered 
under the MISA and other Preventive Laws in this 
State was as follows ; 



MISA 

COFEPOSA 

DISlR 



1,135 

45 
451 



81 out of 1,135 detentions were ordered under the 
unamended provisions of MISA, and the total 
number of detentions ordered by invoking Section 
16A of the MISA was 1,054. The categorywise 
break-up of 1,135 detentions under MISA is as 
follows ■-: — 



Political Parties 

Banned Organisations 

Anti-socials, : criminals 
others 



and 



210 

512 

413 



Among those detained on account of association with 
the political Opposition parties, the largest number 



47 



(130) was of the followers and associates of the BJS. 
Members and associates of the CPML (350) topped 
the list amongst those detained on account of asso- 
ciation with the banned organisations. 

19.42 The detention cases received from the Dist- 
rict authorities were processed, in the General Admi- 
nistration Department and put up to the Chief 
•Minister through the Chief Secretary for final orders. 
The detaining authorities sent the grounds of deten- 
tion in a majority of cases in the form of a letter 
addressed to the Chief Secretary. However, in some 
cases, copies pi reports received from the SP were 
attached. 

■19.43 It was seen that some scrutiny of grounds 
of detention was done in the GAD. In majority 
of cases, the GAD recommended confirmation of 
the declaration issued by the detaining authority 
under Section 16A(3). In 111 cases, the declara- 
tions issued by the detaining authority were not 
confirmed by the State Government. There were a 
few cases in which the declaration under Section 
16A(3) were confirmed by the Mate Government 
even though the GAD pointed out that the grounds 
of detention were noi proper or sufficient. In the 
cases of Shri M. Ram Mohan Rao. an Advocate of 
Laxempet, the grounds read : — 

"He had been mstrumental in inciting a 
good deal of litigation and making use of 
his influence for political ends. He has 
been acting as an active liaison between 
the leadership of the extremists and local 
y youngmen of Laxempet, Thimapuram and 
other villages. He was instrumental in 
inducing the party workers to settle down 
in Thimapuram village and inducing, 
people to indulge in violence." 

The GAD noted in this case : — 

"There are no specific instances quoted jn 
the grounds, but for the recent murders 
in Laxempet Taluqa, District Adilabad, 
they do not appear to give any justifica- 
tion for confirmation. We may, there- 
fore, allow the order to lapse and advise 
the Collector accordingly." 

However, the Chief Secretary recommended 
confirmation of the detention saying :— 

"While generally agreeing with the J. S. 
nevertheless, I would recommend con- 
firmation in view of the recent occurrences 
in Adilabad District. Collector will be 
asked to give' full particulars of the instan- 
ces wherever possible in the grounds of 
detention." 

The detention was confirmed and the Advocate 
remained in detention till March 21, 1977. 

19.44 The grounds of detention in case of persons 
detained on account of their association with political 
Opposition party revealed their past activities over 



a period for five years or more, such as participating 
in meetings and demonstra'tions, etc., organised by 
the detenu's party. In many Cases, no recent activi- 
ties nearabout or shortly after the proclamation of 
emergency were mentioned (case of Shri N. Syanha 
of District Mehboob Nagar). In the case of Shri 
Kanna Reddy of District Kurnool, the ground Of 
detention mentioned in detail the past political acti- 
vities of the detenu such as organising meetings and 
agitations but they mostly pertained to the year 1973 
only. Last activity mentibned was of participating 
: in a public meeting on January 5, 1975. Shri J. 
Bhaskar Rao of District Kurnool was detained on 
July 31, 1975. The main ground of detention was 
that he published a derogatory article against the 
Prime Minister. The grounds did not reveal any 
other activity that could be regarded as prejudicial. 

19.45 Persons alleged to be members or sympa- 
thisers of the banned organisations were detained 
without any specific activity being mentioned in the 
grounds of detention. The grounds of detention 
given in many cases of CPML members and sympa- 
thisers only mentioned that they were active members 
of the organisation and had participated in the 
meetings of the party in the previous years or had 
tried to collect funds to strengthen the organisation 
in the past. The grounds of detention given in the 
case of Shri Kodam Rajaiah of District Karim Nagar 
read : — 

"Whereas it has been made out to me 
that you Shri Kodam Rajaiah son of 
Ramaiah resident of Thangallapalli of 
Sircilla Taluq, are the Secretary of the L 
Ryothu Cooli Sangham, Sircilla, you have 
- organised and subsequently brought into 
the existence the Sircilla Unit of Ryothu 
Cooli Sangham on 13-11-1974, you are 
also responsible for the promotion of this 
organisation and enrolment of its member- 
ship. Active participation, membership 
and the management of the above State 
Organisation brings you under the 
purview of Rule 33(3) of the Defence of 
India Rules, 1971 and your remaining at 
large is prejudical to the maintenance of 
public order and security of the State." 

19.46 The grounds given in ihe case of Shri 
Suvarnakanthi Vijaya Raju of District Krishna 
detained on June 29, 1975, were : — 

"He is an active worker of the RSU [pyo- 
CP(ML) Charu Mazumdar Group] believ- 
ing in 'Armed Revolution*. He was 
elected an executive member Of the AP 
RSU in the First State Conference of the 
AP RSU held at Hyderabad on 22nd and 
23rd February 1975. 

His present activities have been directed 
for promoting and propagating disloyalty 
and disaffection towards the Government 
among the members or" the public and he is 
thereby conducting himself in a manner 
, prejudicial to the maintenance of public 
order." 



48 



19.47 77 students were detained, under MISA 
during the period of emergency. A majority: of them 
was. detained on account of alleged association with 
the CPML and its connected organisations. In many 
cases, the activities mentioned in the grounds of 
detention related only to their participation in pro- 
CPML agitations in the past with no recent activity 
mentioned. Some students were detained on account 
of alleged participation in the meeting and agitations 
connected with the JP movement In the case of 
Shri Randla Sadashiv Reddy, detained on July 17, 
1976, the grounds of detention mentioned that he 
was an active member and organiser of "Radical 
Students' Union" and he attended the State Con- 
ference of the union in February 1975. His active 
participation, membership and management of the 
above organisation brought him under the purview of 
Rule 33(3) of the PISIR. During the last one year 
of emergency, he had been holding secret meetings 
and exhorting students to be ready for armpd 
struggle but no date time and place of the alleged 
meetings was mentioned in the grounds. 

19.4& 112 Government servants were also 
detained under MISA. A large number of these 
Government servants belonged to public under- 
takings like Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd., Indian 
Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., etc. They were de- 
tained on the grounds of being active members or 
office-bearers of employees' associations affiliated to 
CPM or CPML In many cases, employees agitating 
on the bonus issue were detained under MISA. Shri 
; Poorna Chandra Rao, President of Hindustan 
Machine Tools Ltd. Workers' Union, Shri G. 
Ramakoteswara Rao and Shri K. Panduranga Rao 
of the same undertaking were detained on the 
grounds that in October 1975, they had agitated 
for the demand of getting 20 per cent bonus, 
opposed the Government policy on bonus 
and distributed pamphlets among workers. 
A few State Government employees were 
also detained under the MISA on the ground of 
alleged association with the JP movement. Shri R. B. 
Mooli, a Clerk in the Directorate of Medical & 
Health Services was detained on the ground that he 
was Chairman of All India Religious Delegates' 
Convention and President of Telengana Employees' 
Association. In April . 1975, he addressed public 
meetings m which he spoke against the Government 
as well as wounded the feelings of other communi- 
ties. No activity after April 1975 was mentioned. 

19.49 In some cases of detention of criminals 
and others, it was seen that MISA was used for 
purposes not covered by Section 3(1) of the Act. 
Allegations like misappropriation of Government 
funds, default in payment of excise arrears, money- 
lending, misuse of fertilisers by stockists, gambling 
bootlegging and black marketing in cinema tickets 
formed the grounds of detention in many cases. In 
some of detention cases, the grounds' referred to 
criminal activities in the remote past with no 
activity ■ within two or three years. 

io 19 .'n2c S u ri Bi ?ajanlal w as detained on January 
18,- 1975 by Police Commissioner, Hyderabad on 
grounds of indulging in illicit distillation of liquor 
but the activities of the detenu mentioned in the 



grounds of detention pertained to ,the year i 1973 
only. Shri Sham Lai Shama was detained on- August 
25. 1975,' under order of the Police Commissioner, 
Hyderabad on account of indulging in gambling. 
The grounds did not mention any specific activity 
after the year 1972. Mohd. Qhouse of Hyderabad 
was detained on August 1, 1975, ■ on account of 
past criminal activities. . But no activity after the 
year 1974 was mentioned in the grounds of 
detention. 

19.51 Shri Y. Venketakrishnoji Rao of District 
East Gcdavri, was detained on June 24, 1976 on 
the ground of being a receiver of stolen railway pro- 
perty. Two incidents, one of April 1, 1975, con- 
cerning 35 iron pipes and another of January 29, 
1976, concerning 90 new empty gunny bags were 
cited in the grounds. The General Administration 
Department noted ; — 

"A fit case for ordinary MISA. We may 
ask the Collector to invoke the ordinary 
provisions of MISA and allow this to lapse." 

The Chief Secretary noted . — 

"While ordinarily, I would have agreed 
with the J.S., in view, however, of the large 

scale thefts that are going on, as a 
deterrent step,.. -it would be advisable to 
confirm the order." 

The detention was confirmed. 

19.52 No Review Committee for periodical review 
of detention cases was set up in the State. How- 
ever, four-monthly review was done regularly by the 
State Government. All cases were put up' before 
the Chief Minister for final orders after obtaining 
reports from the detaining authority and DIG (Intelli- 
gence) , It was seen that in almost all cases, the in- 
formation given by the DIG (Int) was accepted and 
detentions were continued or revoked mainly on the 
basis of the report of the DIG (Int) and detaining 
-authority. However, in October 1975, some poli- 
tical detenus recommended for release by the DIG 
tint) were not released in view of the forthcoming 
visit of the Prime Minister. There were several 
cases m which the State Government recommended 
revocation of the detention order, but the Central 
Government did not agree to the release of the 
detenu. 

19.53 All applications for parole were out up to 
the Chief Minister for final orders. Before taking 
a decision _ on the request for parole, the comment? 
of the detaining authority and DIG (Int) were obtain- 
ed. It was seen that in most cases,' the decision to 
grant or refuse parole was taken on the ba=is of 
the report of DIG (Int). Mostly parole was granted 
on the death or marriage of a near relation, sickness 
ot tlie detenu or his near relations, etc. 

19.54 The State Government in reply to the 
Commissions questionnaire have stated that parole 
was .refused even in the following cases :— 

(i) On account of death of a fanvly 

member j ^ 

(ii) Marriage of detenu's dependant .... {% 
(iii) Illness of a family member .;. 58 



49 



19.55 Dr. P. V. N. Raju, President of the State 
BJS, was earlier granted 10 days' parole for attending 
the marriage of his daughter in January 1976; but 
in August 1976 when he requested for parole on the 
ground of illness of his sister, the request was reject- 
ed for the reason that his sister was not seriously ill. 

i 9.5.6 Shri K. P. Shanthi Raju requested for parole 
in December 1976 on the ground of illness of his 
daughter. It was rejected because DIG(Int) was 
opposed to the release of the detenu. Later a tele- 
graphic request for parole was made by the detenu on 
account of the death of his father. DIG (Int) con- 
firmed the fact of the death of detenu's father on 
December 29, 1976, but opposed granting of parole 
on the ground that the detenu was a militant CPML 
worker. Parole was refused but permission to attend 
the obsequial ceremonies under police escort was 
granted. 

19.57 Shri U. Balyoggaya, detained on November 
6, 1975, on the ground of being associated with 
the militant group of CPML, made a request for 
parole stating that his wife is bed-ridden with TB, 
his grandmother is very old and infirm and his 
younger brother is a cripple having lost his legs in an 
.accident. The Collector, Mehboob Nagar confirmed 
these facts but opposed the request for parole on the 
ground that the detenu was a hardcore naxalite and 
was likely to revive his activities, if released. The 
request was rejected. 

.19.58 Shri Yedula Venkaiah of Nellore District 
made a request for parole on December 8, 1975, 
on the ground that his mother had expired on 
November 28. 1 975, and he was her only son. The 
Collector recommended one month's parole while 
the DIG(Int) agreed to one week's parole under 
police escort. But the Chief Secretary noted on 
December 24, 1975: — 

"The detenu is reported to be- a militant 
cadre of CPI(ML). I would not even 
recommend sending him under escort -as 
it would be possible for him to communi- 
cate with others. This may be undesir- 
able on the eve of PM's visit." 

The Chief Minister agreed with the opinion of 
the Chief Secretary and request for parole was 
rejected. 

19.59 Shri G. S. Prabakar Sarma, a Junior 
College Lecturer of Vishakhapatnam, was detained 
.on account of involvement in the activities of the 
RSS. On February 20, 1976, he sent a telegram 
to the State Government requesting for parole on 
account of the death of his father. The same day. 
telegrams were also sent by the wife and the brother 
of the detenu requesting for his release on parole. 
The comments of Collector, Vishakhapatnam and 
DIG(Int) were called for on February 21, 1976, 
but the Collector reported inability to give any 
comments because the' death had occured in a 
village of Krishna District. The report of the Collec- 



tor, Krishna District was received on February 27, 
1976, in which he confirmed the fact of the death 
of detenu's father and also informed that the obse- 
quies will start on February 28, 1976. However, 
the case was put up for decision by the GAD on 
March 1, 1976, and a decision to grant parole was 
taken on March 4, with the result that the detenu 
could not attend the last rites of his father. 

ASSAM 

19.60 533 persons were deained under MISA in 
Assam during the period of the emergency. Cate- 
gorywise break-up is given below :— 

(i) Members or Asso- 143 including 74 of RSS 
dates of banned 28 of CPML, 13 of 

Organiiations AM and 4 of JET. 

(ii) Members or Asso- 203 including 86 of CPM, 
ciates of Political Par- 33 of Socialist Party 

ties and 20 of BJS. 



(iii) Others 



187 



The third category comprises anti-social elements 
and includes railway criminals, burglars and thieves, 
illicit distillers, opium and ganja smugglers and 
hoarders/profiteers of essential commodities. 

19.61 RSS among the banned organisations and 
CPM among the jpolitical parties appear to have 
faced the brunt of MISA in Assam. 

19.62 It has been intimated by the State Govern- 
ment in reply to the Commission's questionnaire on 
"Circumstances leading to Emergency and Arrests/ 
Detentions" that after the receipt of the information 
and instructions from the Government of India 
regarding enforcement of emergency, names of some 
persons belonging to SPI, BJS, RSS, CPM were sug- 
gested to the District SPs from Special Branch Head- 
quarters for arrests under D1R /detentions under 
MISA. Wireless message No. SP 11/249-75/221, 
dated June 26, 1975, from DIG-, Special Branch, 
Gauhati, to all District j Superintendents of Police 
with information to the DIGs is reproduced 
below : — ! 

"IN THE CONTEXT OF DECLARA- 
TION OF EMERGENCY AND INTEN- 
TION OF OPPOSITION PARTIES TO 
DISTURB PUBLIC . ORDER AND 
DISTURB SERVICES ESSENTIAL TO 
COMMUNITY (.) DETENTION 
ORDERS UNDER MISA SHOULD BE 
OBTAINED IN RESPECT OF ACTIVE 
LEADERS/WORKERS OF SOCIALIST 
PARTY, JAN SANGH, CPM (.) LISTS 
BEING INTIMATED SEPARATELY 
AND NAMES MAY BE ADDED OR 
THOSE INACTIVE MAY BE DELET* 
ED (.) THEIR ACTIVITIES AND 
MOVEMENTS BE KEPT UNDER 
WATCH FORTHWITH (.) PARA (.) 
DATE AND TIME WHEN THESE 



50 



. DETENTIONS/ ARRESTS SHOULD BE 
EFFECTED WOULD BE INTIMATED 
THIS EVENING (.) ALERT ALL CON- 
CERNED AND KEEP DEFCOM IN- 
FORMED (.)" 

19.63 As. intimated by the State Government, 35 
persons were detained under MISA and 22 were 
arrested under DiR during the period from June 26 
to June 30, 1975. 

19.64 Powers under MISA were used extensively 
to deal with trade union leaders, teachers and stu- 
dents. 20 persons were detained allegedly on 
account of their trade union /activities. Railways 
and P & T Departments figure more prominently 
in this category of detentions. A large number of 
teachers were detained under MISA for their alleg- 
ed association with Assam College Teachers' Asso- 
ciation, whose activities find prominent mention in 
the grounds of detention of these persons. Powers 
under MISA were used to deal with agitating stu- 
dents and to restore peace on the campus. A large 
number of students were detained under MISA for 
their participation in student agitations over issues 
like enhancement in fee, postponement or bovcott 
of examinations, etc. 

19.65 Some examples of detentions ordered on 
political grounds arc given below : — 

(i) S/Shri Kamla Das, Harulara Das; Harnath 
Das and Naryan Bharali, all of Congress 
(O), were detained under MISA under 
the orders of the State Government issued 
on September 18, 1975. Their detention 
was recommencfed by the SP, Special 
Branch on the ground that they were cri- 
ticising the promulgation of emergency and 
JO-point economic programme of the then 
PM. It was also mentioned that they did 
not return the Government loan and were 
instigating the members of Panbari Agri- 
cultural Farm Corporation also not to re- 
pay the Government loans. Reference was 
also made to their presence in a meeting 
organised by Shri Nagen Barua, PSP MLA' 
of Dergaon, who was allegedly supporting 
JP Movement. Detention orders were issu- 
ed without invoking Section 16A. The 
cases were reviewed by the Advisory Board 
on October 28, 1975. The Board observ- 
ed that the grounds of detention of these 
P^fsons were mere duplication. The Board 
held that the main ground that they did 
not repay the loan granted to them, could 
not, even if found true, attract the provi- 
sions of MISA- Their attendance in the 
meeting organised by Shri Nagen Barua 
was not considered a sufficient ground in 
view of the fact that these person! appear- 
ed to be passive participants in a meeting 
whose organiser Shri Nagen Barua himseJi 
was not detained under MISA. Detention 
orders were revoked on November 7, 
1975, on the advice of the Board 



(ii) Shri Hem Chander Das was the lone CPI 
leader detained under MISA. He was 
detained on November 12, 1976, 
under the orders of the DM, 
Dibrugarh. The grounds of deten- 
tion referred to his activities from 1952 to 
1966 on the farmers' front. It was also 
. mentioned that he was responsible for a 
clash between two factions in Dhanukhana 
Gaon in March, 1976, which had resulted 
in the death of one person. The exact role 
of Shri Das in this clash of March, 1976, 
was not spelt out in the grounds of cetcn^ 
tion, which were also silent about the im- 
mediate cause for his detention in Novem- 
ber, 1976. Shri Hem Chander Das 
remained under detention till February 15, 
1977. i , 

(iii) Shri Mohd. Ali, an Advocate of Kamrup, 
was detained under the orders of District 
Magistrate, Kamrup, dated July 9, 1975, 
under the normal provisions of MISA. It 
was mentioned in the grounds of detention 
that he had organised a Janata Conven- 
tion at Barpeta Phukan Hall on June 8, 
1975, and had acted as the treasurer of the 
Reception Committee. This Convention 
formed a Janata Sangram Parishad for 
Assam with 55 members including Shri 
Mohd. Ali with the object of launching 1 a 
Bihar type movement in Assam. It was 
also mentioned in the grounds of deten- 
tion that he had discussed with his asso- 
ciates on June 30, 1975, at his house the 
Allahabad High Court judgment setting 
aside the election of Smt. Indira Gandhi 
and decided to launch a violent agitation. 
The case was reviewed by the Advisory 
Board on September 6, 1975- Shri Mohd. 
All appeared before the Board and sub- 
mitted that his father's name was Haji 
Mohd- Jasmal Ali Talukdar and not 
Abdul Motin Talukdar as was mentioned 
in the detention order. He also pointed 
out a discrepancy about his village. The 
Board observed : "This shows that he 
was not known to the authorities- con- 
cerned before the alleged incident," The- 
Board held that there was no sufficient 
cause for his detention and the order was 
revoked on September 9, 1975, 

Civ) Shri Hari Nath son of Shri Pushp Nath 
General Secretary of All Assam Minis^ 
tenal Officers' Association, Gauhati 
Branch, was detained under the orders 
dated July 1, 1975, of District Magistrate, 
Kamrup, issued under the normal provi- 
sions of MISA. The case was reviewed by 
the Advisory Board on September 5, 1975. 
Shri Hari Nath could convince the Board 
that his detention order was originally 
issued on June 26, 1975, and the date of 
that order was later changed to July 1 
1 975, after adding in the grounds of 'deten- 
tion that he had gone to the University 
Hostel on July 1, 1975, to meet some stu- 



51 



dent leaders for organising an. agitation to 
compel the authorities to hold the Post 
Graduate examinations afresh. The Board 
observed that the order of detention was 
prepared before this ground of detention 
came into existence. The order was, there- 
fore, revoked on September. 9, 1975. File 
shows that Shri Hari Nath was then arrest- 
ed under DISIR on September 10, 1975. 
He was released on bail in this case on 
September 17/ 1975. He was detained 
under MISA again on September 18, 1975. 
Grounds of detention referred to a secret 
meeting of July 5, 1975, and another of 
July 23, 1975, where he was alleged to 
have criticised the Government for impos- 
ing emergency and the authorities of the 
Gauhati University for refusing to hold 
Post Graduate examinations afresh. This 
detention was reviewed by the Advisory 
Board on November 15, 1975, and was 
found to be without sufficient cause, Deten- 
tion order was, therefore, revoked on 
November 17, 1975. 
(v) Shri Apurva Kumar Chaudhary son of late 
Shri Krishan Kumar Chaudhary was de- 
tained on July 27, 1975, under the orders 
of District Magistrate, Kamrup. It was 
mentioned in the grounds of detention 
that he had discussed with his associates 
on July 13, 1975, the decision of the 
Executive Council of the Gauhati 
University taken on July 21, 1975, 
not to hold the Pre-University 
examinations afresh. He represented 
against his detention, The case 
was reviewed by the Advisory Board on 
August. 29. 1975. The Board remarked 
that "this is absurd. The District Magis- 
trate signed passed the order without 
applying his mind". The order was revoked 
on September 2, 1975. Another person 
Shri Kamal Kumar Das was also detain- 
ed under the orders of District Magis- 
trate, Kamrup, passed on the same 
grounds. In this case also, the Advisory 
Board observed on v September 5, 1975, 
that "Obviously the allegation is absurd." 
His detention was revoked on Septem- 
ber 9, 1975. 
(vi) -13 students of Assam Engineering Institute, 
Gauhati. were detained under the orders of 
District Magistrate, Kamrup, passed on 
June 30, 1976. Grounds of detention ref- 
erred to a single incident of June 19, 1976. 
It is seen from the file that some students 
were expelled from the examination hall 
on. June 18/19, 1976 for using unfair 
means. These students were alleged to have 
gone in a group to the residence of the 
i Principal on June 19, 1976 and caused 
' damage to his property after staging a 
demonstration there. It is not clear from 
the grounds of detention as to what action 
under the normal law was taken. Recourse 
to MTSA appears to have been taken on 



recommendations from the Special Branch, 
Shri Bhagwan Das son of Shri Kabin Das, 
was one of the detenus in this case. It is 
seen from the file that the State Special 
Branch wrote to the Political Department 
on July 8, 1976, to the effect that their 
further enquiries revealed that Shri Bhag- 
wan Das had not taken active part in 'the 
student trouble on June 19, 1976, and he 
had given an undertaking for maintaining 
good behaviour in future. Shri S- K. 
Purkayastha, the then Joint Secretary(Poli- 
tical) recorded that "Special Branch would , 
have done well to recheck their informa- 
tion before sending for detention of the 
said Bhagwan Das under MISA." The 
Chief Secretary added, "I feel orders 
should be revoked. Special Branch should 
be more careful in such cases, particularly, 
where young students are involved, whose 
career may be marred." Detention of Shri 
Bhagwan Das was revoked on July 26, 
1976. Other detenus in this case were rel- 
eased on December 10, 1976. 

(vii) Shri Baseswar Saikia son of Shri Tola 
Ram Saikia, General Secretary of Assam 
College Teachers' Association, wasdetain- 
ed under the orders of District Magistrate 
Naogaon, dated November 5, 1976. It 
was mentioned in the grounds of detention 
that Shri Saikia had taken active part in 
the movements launched by the Associa- 
tion in 1974 and during the time of Pre- 
University examination in 1975. On June 
15, 1975, most of the college teachers 
from different colleges of Assam assembled 
at Naogaon College and expressed their 
lack of faith in Shri Saikia and resigned 
from the Association and joined the newly 
formed All Assam College Teachers* As- 
sociation (AACTA). It was alleged that- 
this had infuriated Shri Saikia, who was 
trying to foment trouble amongst the Col- 
lege Teachers by issuing some circulars in 
connection with the proposed 27th Annual 
Convention of ACTA to be held at Gau- 
hati on November 16, 1976. In these cir- 
culars^ he criticised the University authori- 
ties for cancelling the election of the 
Teacher Member to the Academic Coun- 
cil and also called upon all College Teach- 
ers to strengthen the Assam College Teach- 
ers' Association and dissociate themelves 
from All Assam College Teachers' Asso- 
ciation. It was also mentioned that Shri 
Saikia was a top-ranking RCPI worker and 
had attended the District Committee meet- 
ing of RCPI held on August 17, 1976, 
where the 20-point economic programme 
was criticised and party workers were urg- 
ed to mobilise the masses to agitate against 
the Government. Shri Saikia sent a petition 
on November 10, 1976, challenging hi$ 
detention. His petition was examined in 
the Political Department and Shri Purkaya- 
stha, Joint Secretary (Political) recorded 
on the file that there was some force in 



.52 



the detenu's contention that "Assam Col- 
lege Teachers' Association is a registered 
Association of Teachers and the call for 
unity is not a prejudicial act." The Joint 
Secretary recommended revocation of the 
order. The case was to be reviewed by the 
Advisory Board on January 8, 1977, but 
the detention order was revoked the same 
day. Shri R- Dutta, the then District Magis- 
trate, Naogaon, who had issued the deten- 
tion order in this case, wrote to the Politi- 
cal Department on January 18, 1978, as 
follows : — 

"In this particular case, the initiative tor 
detention is from State Police Headquar- 
ters, The SP, Naogaon was asked to sub- 
mit a proposal to the' DM for approval, 
which was done on November 4, 1976, 
sometime in the afternoon. Going trirough 
the grounds of detention furnished, I felt 
that they were not clearly established and 
needed the support of additional and 
stronger materials and I suggested to SP, 
Naogaon when this was discussed in the 
evening of November 5, 1976. Soon after 
around 10 p.m. or so, the Home Minister, 
Assam, urged me over phone to issue the 
order as this was urgent. Accordingly, 
order u/s 3 read with 3(i) of MISA was 
issued and I did not deliberately invoke 
Section 16A as suggested in the detention 
proposals." 

19.66 Some illustrations . of detentions ordered 
on non-political grounds are given below : — 

(i) Shri Kalu Singh alias Dharam Singh son of 
Shri Pyara Singh was detained under 
MISA under the orders of District Magis- 
trate, Kamrup, dated August 19, 1975. 
Grounds of detention mentioned that he 
had been actively associating himself in 
criminal activities and on June 16, 1975 
at 9.30 p.m. he had assembled near India 
Carbon Gate with his associates Shri Swa- 
pan Kumar Das and Shri Suresh Chand 
Sana with a few wagon breaking imple- 
ments with the intention of causing" damage 
to railway wagons and commit theft there- 
from. It was further mentioned that on 
seeing the police, he gave up his plans. No 
details of his previous criminal activities 
were given. The case was reviewed by the 
Advisory Board on September 26, 1975, 
and it was observed that "Grounds against 
him are vague- The Board is not satisfied 
that he was indulging in any activities pre- 
judicial to the maintenance of services es- 
sential to the community. In the opinion 
Of the Board, there is no sufficient cause 
for his detention." The order was revoked 
on September 29, 1975. 

(ii) Shri Gopal Swami alias Gopal Maharaj 
a businessman of Fancy Bazar, Gauhati' 
was detained under MISA on January 6 



Cm) 



1976. Section 16A was invoked in this 
case. It is seen from the grounds of deten- 
tion that recourse to MISA was taken 
because he had refused to hand over his 
godown at Goreshwar requisitioned by the 
Government for keeping paddy procured 
by Assam State Marketing Federation. He 
is alleged to have threatened the Federa- 
tion Employees on December 6, 1975, 
when they had gone to take over the go- 
down. The case was examined in the poli- 
tical Department for confirmation and 
Shri S. K. Purkayastha, Joint Secretary, 
recorded that "The moot point in this case 
is whether the penal laws were not suffi- 
cient for dealing with such a Case. ■ it 
appears that the detenu has persistently 
been refusing to make available his go- 
down at one plea or another despite re- 
quisition orders issued by D. C, Kamrup. 
Logical course, it appears, would be to 
prosecute him for obstructing Government 
servants in the discharge of their duties and 
to fix the rent of the godown under re- 
levant laws. Apart from the fac's shown, 
nothing more has been adduced to show 
that the detenu had actively, either overtly 
or covertly worked against the paddy pro- 
curement policy of the Government." The 
Chief Secretary, however, recommended 
that the detention may be approved but 
the declaration made by the District Magis- 
trate that the detention was necessary for 
dealing effectively with the emergency 
should be revoked. The effect of this deci- 
sion, legality of which is disputed was to 
convert detention under Section 16A 
into a detention under normal provisions 
of MISA- The detention was reviewed by 
the Advisory Board on March 13, 1976 
Shri Gopnl Swamy contended before the 
Board that the godown was in the occupa- 
tion of his ujfe and grown up daughter and 
he could not conveniently hand over the 
possession to Government. The Board 
held that even if the allegations against 
the detenu, i.e., his refusal ro hand over 
the godown to the Government without 
sufficient reason was correct, he was liable 
under provisions of ordinary laws. The 
Board did not find the order sus'ainable 
and it was revoked on March 15, 1976. 

Shri Moti Ram Kataki was detained under 
the orders of District Maeisrrate, Lakhim- 
pur, dated October 4, 1976. Grounds of 
detention show that on September 13 
1976, on the occasion of Tithi of Maha- 
purush .Madhav Dev, Shri Kataki had not 
allowed one Shri Neog to distribute Prasad 
m the village Namghar on the plea that 
Shri Neog had subjected himself to sterili- 
zation operation. It was stated that this 
conduct of Shri Moti Ram Kataki had 
adversely affected the Government's family 
planning programme. The order was con- 
firmed by the Government on October 16 



ssmsKij, 



53 



1976. It is also seen from the file that Shri 
Kataki, who was working as an Additional 
Supervisor Kanungo in the office of the 
Assistant Settlement Officer, was placed 
under suspension on September 28, 1976, 
for his alleged propaganda against the 
family planning programme. He remained 
under detention till January IS, 1977. 
Another person Shri Narhah'adur 'Chhetri 
was detained under the orders of District 
Magistrate, Lakhimpur, dated June S, 
1976, for his alleged rumour mongering 
aimed at making the family planning drive 
unpopular. Shri S. K. Purkayastha, Joint 
Secretary, recorded on June 21, 1976, that 
"since action against Shri Chhetri under 
DIR had already been taken, the Chief 
Secretary might like to discuss the case 
with the DIG Special Branch before con- 
. sidering the question of confirmation". 
The order was confirmed on June 28, 1976 
and Shri Chhetri remained in detention till 
December 30, 1976. Shri Arbind Das son 
*of Shri Kedar Das, another person from 
Lakhimpur, was detaiued on October 4, 
1976, allegedly for making propaganda 
against the family planning drive.' The 
order was confirmed on October 16, 1976 
and Shri Arbind Da s remained under de- 
tention till February 7, 1977, In the case 
of Shri Vir Bahadur Chhetri son of Shri 
Lai Bahadur Chhetri, detained under the 
order of District Magistrate Lakhimpur 
on June 15, 1976, allegedly for indulging 
in loose talk and rumour mongering, which 
had led to the failure of a vasectomy camp 
in Lakhimpur District, Shri Purkayastha, 
had once again . suggested that the' Chief 
Secretary might discuss the matter with 
the DIG Special Branch before confirma- 
tion. However, this order was also con- 
firmed on June 29, 1976, and Shri Vir 
Bahadur Chhetri remained under detention 
till January 18, 1977. 

19.67 Scrutiny has revealed that "majority of the 
detentions, political as well as non-political, were 
ordered under the directions from the Special Branch. 

19 ' J 68 J J^* detentions were ordered under urn- 
- amended MISA. 135 were. reviewed by the Advisory 
Board Orders in respect of the remaining seem to 
have been revoked before their cases became due for 
consideration by the Review Board. Scrutiny has 
.revealed that in 32 cases the Board found that the 
detention orders were not sustainable and detenus 
concerned were released. Use of Section 16A was 
made very sparingly in the earlier phases cf emer- 
gency and the' administration appears to have prefer- 
red to depend on the normal provision of MISA and 
even in respect of some alleged activities, of banned 
organisations and prominent political workers deten- 
tion orders were issued without invoking Section 16A 
and grounds of detention were communicated to the 
detenus concerned. Most of these orders were up- 
held by the Advisory Board. 
S/25 HA/78— 8 



19.69 Detention orders issued by the District 
Magistrate under Section 16A were required to be 
confirmed by the State Government within 15 days. 
The District Magistrates used to send the detention 
order, declaration under Section 16A and the 
grounds of detention to the Home Department, where 
cases were processed for obtaining orders of con- 
firmation from the Chief Minister. Scrutiny has 
revealed that detention orders under 16A in respect 
of the political detenus were processed in bunches 
and were invariably confirmed. Non-political deten- 
tions were scrutinised thoroughly by the Joint Secre- 
tary (Political), Shri S. K. Purkayastha, who used 
to. record his opinion and recommend revocation of 
the order where he found that the grounds of deten- 
tion could not justify the detention order. Scrutiny 
has revealed that his views were accepted only in 
one or two cases and the orders issued by the 
District Magistrates were invariably confirmed despire 
the recommendations of the Joint Secretary (Politi- 
cal) to the contrary. Tn some cases, the Chief Secre- 
tary used to agree with the Joint Secretary partially 
and recommend that the declaration that detention 
was necessary to deal effectively with the emergency 
should be allowed to lapse, but detention should 
continue. The effect of this decision was to convert 
the detention order under Section 16A into an order 
under unamended MISA. However, this is legally 
unsound. The Act clearly lays down that if the 
declaration issued under Section 16A is not confirm- 
ed within 15 days, it ceases to have any validity. It 
is also clear that the detention order issued by invok- 
ing Section 16A cannot stand by itself after the 
lapse of the declaration under Section 16A. If the 
Administration thought it necessary to detain such 
persons under the unamended MISA, the proper 
course was to revoke the detention order under Sec- 
tion 16A and issued a fresh order "under the 
unamended MISA. Scrutiny of relevant files does 
not show that this was done. 

19.70 Scrutiny has revealed that Only in three 
-eases out of the total of ;3'Sr cases under -Section 
16A, detention orders were not confirmed by the 
State Government. The following illustrations ex- 
tracted from the files will indicate the manner, scope 
and effect of scrutiny of detention orders carried out 
in the Political .Department ;— 

(i) Shri Puri Sarfa, an alleged illicit distiller, 
was detained under the orders of District 
Magistrate Tejpur on September 1, 1975. 
It was mentioned in ths grounds of deten- 
tion that in a raid on his house on August 
23, 1975, two to three litres of fermented 
wash was recovered. Shri Purkayastha 
Joint Secretary (Political) wrote that "In 
view of the Cabinet decision taken earlier 
the Government may approve the detention 
order . However, the Chief Secretary 
recorded that "since a specific offence had 
been detected in this case, it would be 
feasible to prosecute the offender under 
the Excise Law". This was approved bV 
the Home Minister and the detenu was 
released on September 23, 1975. 

(ii) Shri R. Barua, District Magistrate, Shib- 
sagar, issued a detention order in respect 



54 



of one Shri Manik Chand Das son of Shri 
Biren Das, an alleged criminal. File shows 
that the Political Department observed that 
Shri Manik Chand Das wa s already under- 
going imprisonment for 26 months. Deten- 
tion was not confirmed and. a letter was 
written to the DIG CID requesting him to 
ensure that orders arc not passed in cases 
where the detenus are already undergoing 
imprisonment. 

<iii) Shri Bhadender Nath Sharma was detained 
under the orders of District Magistrate, 
Darrang, dated" May 26, 1976* ori account 
of his alleged cheating activities. It was 
mentioned in the grounds of detention that 
he had cheated some poor landless people 
of Mangaldoi Sub-Division in procuring 
from them Rupees two to three thousand 
• on the assurance of arranging land for 
thein. A case under Section 420 IPC was 
registered against him in this connection. 
Shri S. K. Purkayastha, Joint Secretary 
(Political) pointed out in this case that "It 
is not clear how the cheating indulged in 
by the detenu is prejudicial to maintenance 
of public order. It also appears that the 
detenu hardly belongs to the category, the 
detention of which is essential for effectively 
dealing with the Emergency". The Chief 
Secretary also wrote that the order was 
not fit for confimation as action under 
normal law had already been initiated. 
Detention order was, however approved 
by Shri H. S. L. Saikia, the then Home 
Minister, on August 9, 1 976. Shri Sharma 
remained in detention till January 16, 

(iv) Shri Kundu Ram Bora son of Shri Mittu 
Bora was detained under the orders dated 
December 4, 1975 of DM Tejpur. It was 
alleged m the grounds of detention that 
he was opposing the procurement of paddv 
from the villagers by the Government 
agency The case was examined in the 
political Department and Shri Purkayastha 
pointed out that the order was wrongly 

Twv^ SeC i° n 3 WM&) instead 
of 3(i)(aXm). He recorded that "the 
grounds of detention did not tally with the 

S e e ct1on°?6A q ^ hat " the ******* «"£■ 
section 16A did not appear to be strictly 

T. S m thes ^. cases " ^les show that 
the matter was discussed with the Chief 
Secretary and the order was confirmed The 
DM was at thp samfi fime i - i «e 

the revocation of the order. The DM 
Ktt Wh^nds of detention oi fJ?„SJ 
A l»76. These mentioned some activities 

S55KW de f m > which <£**££ 

port the allegation that he was a threat to 
t T^ ? r 2? r - If was Pointed out by 
1976 fc T P^Spent on Januar^! 
1 976 that the "modifications in the wounds 
of detention would not help and the order 
was required to be revoked". Acco^mgly 



the detention was revoked but a fresh 
detention order was issued on- January 23, 
1976, which was confirmed on February 4, 
1976. It was revoked on April 20, 1976, 
after discussion in a meeting attended by 
the Home Minister, the Chief Secretary, 
IGP Assam, DIG Special Branch, SP Spe- 
cial Branch and SP Darrang. 
. (v) Shri Badsama Laskar son of Shri Bi'lkadar 
Ah Laskar was detained on May 1, 1976, 
under the orders of DM Cachar. The 
grounds of detention referred to one speci- 
fic activity relating to some property matter. 
It was alleged that he did not allow his 
tenant to take over the possession of the 
land in accordance with the land reform 
policy of the Government. The Joint Sec- 
retary (Political), in his noting dated May 
14, 1976, recorded that "Though the sub- 
ject had tried to discredit the Government 
m implementing its policy, his activities 
did not have the political nexus that affect 
the maintenance of public order". However 
the Chief Secretary recorded that the deten- 
tion orders appeared to be justified and the 
orders were confirmed by the Government 
(vi) Shri Amar Chand Dhri was detained under 
the orders of DM Sibsagar issued on 
September 13, 1975. It was mentioned in 
the grounds of detention that Shri Dhri 
SL? h . ab,tual , .juggler and blackmar- 
keteer of essential commodities There 
were references to two cases of 1 973 one 
case of 1974 and one case of July 1975 
It was also mentioned that a case under 
section 1 4 DIR was registered aS 

sSeTarv^rPnir ' ??* ^P^SK 
secretary (Political) recorded that "the 

grounds mentioned are not fresh in all 

circumstances. It also appears that the 

detenu is being prosecuted under DIR for 

not displaying his stocks of baby food cor 

rectly. The last few lines of thelatf^Sre 

mentioned in the grounds of detention alio 

S? £ar t0 ^ Vague " File shows hat the 
cW was discussed .with the Special Branch 
and after obtaining their views Shri 

action under the unamended MPS A*™* 
was approved by the Minister tL m* 
however, does not show wither ft?5p? *' 



UtOUWlXQW&HSi£g£4&- 



55 



Darning on the ground of hoarding of 
food-stuffs, it was decided to approve the 
detention but allow the declaration to 
lapse. 

19.71 Four-monthly Reviews of MISA cases were 
conducted in the Political Department. The cases 
of the persons', whose detentions became due for 
review, were sent to . the Special Branch mostly in 
bunches for their recommendations. Scrutiny has 
revealed that the Special Branch used to forward 
recommendations for the continued detention of all 
the detenus without indicating any criteria followed 
by them for this purpose. The Special Branch also 
used to send recommendations for the extension of 
parole of such detenus, who were then on parole 
and whose activities did not warrant their confine- 
mem. Cases do not appear to have been examined 
individually and it is not clear whether any reports 
were called for from the detaining authorities. 

19.72 The scrutiny has revealed that quite often 
cases for review were considered in meetings called 
by the Home Minister and attended by the Chief 
Secretary, Joint Secretary (Political), IGP and DIG 

Special Branch. Sometimes an ad hoc committee with 
Home Minister as Chairman-and Chief Secretary and 
-Home Secretary as Members used to meet for this 
purpose. Scrutiny has also revealed that in a few 
•cases the decision to release a detenu was taken on 
the basis of a discussion between the Chief Minister 
or Home Minister and the DIG, Special Branch. 
The case of Shri Bhadrul Huda, detained under the 
orders of DM Dibrugarh on June 27, 1975 may be 
quoted as an illustration. It is seen from the file that 
Jus order was revoked on the basis of a discussion 
between the Chief Minister and the DIG ' Special 
Branch. Reasons for his release are not indicated 
on the file^ After the receipt of recommendations 
from the DIG, Special Branch, the cases used to be 
put up to the Home Minister for obtaining his orders 
regarding the continued detention of the detenus, 
whose cases were reviewed. Scrutiny has revealed that 
in several cases, the orders of continued detention 
were issued withoui obtaining the formal orders from 
the Home Minister. Proceedings of reviews held 
^n November 1975, March 1976, April 1976 and 
December 1976 do not appear to have been sent to 
the Minister for his formal orders and the orders for 
continued detention were issued by the Joint Secre- 
tary (Political) . In some cases orders for continued 
detention were issued from the Political Department 
in anticipation of formal orders from the Home 
Minister. Cases of 53 detenus, whose review was 
due in October, 1976 : were sent to Soecial Branch 
on October 21, 1976. The Special Branch sent their 
recommendations for the continued detention of all 
of them on October 28, 1976. Orders were, accord- 
ingly, issued on October 31, 1976. Approval of the 
Home Minister was obtained on December IS, 1976. 

19.73 Most of the political detenus were released 
only after December 1976. Revocation orders in 
respect of the members of banned organisations were 
issued after the revocation of Emergency. Some 
persons were also, released during the period of Emer- 
gency, but decisions to this effect do not appear to 



have been taken during the formal review of these 
cases. Scrutiny has revealed that such decisions 
were taken during the meetings of an ad hoc com- 
iriittee held under the Chairmanship of the Home 
Minister, which used to be attended by the Chief 
Secretary, IGP, DIG Special Branch, SP Special 
Branch, Joint Secretary (Political) and SPs of the 
Districts concerned. 

19.74 Scrutiny of parole cases has revealed that 
requests for grant of parole were processed in the 
Political Department and parole was granted on the 
recommendations of the Special Branch. It is also 
seen that the Special Branch used to consult the 
Superintendent of Police concerned before making 
their recommendations. The recommendations of 
the District Magistrates were called for only in the 
cases of persons detained on the recommendations of 
Food and Supply Department, Scrutiny has also 
revealed that once a person was released on parole, 
his case was invariably considered for extension of 
parole whether there was a formal request from him 
or not provided he was not a member of a banned 
organisation. It is also seen from the files that a 
fairly large number of detenus released on parole 
in the first instance were allowed to remain on parole 
till the revocation of the orders of their detention. At 
the time of making recommendations for the continu- 
ed detention of the detenus, the Special Branch used 
to make specific recommendations for the extension 
of parole in respect of the detenus, who were then on 
parole and whose activifics did not warrant cancella- 
tion of this facility granted to them. There are 
■a .few cases of cancellation of parole on the basis 
of recommendations of the Special Branch based on 
the -objectionable activities of the detenus- Concerned 
during the period of parole. For example, parole 
of Shri Santipada Ray was cancelled because of his 
indulgence in trade union activities during the period 
of parole. However, he was again granted parole 
which was extended till he was finally released. It 
is also found that once it was decided to release a 
certain detenu and his case was referred to the Cen- 
tral Government for their approval, he was released 
on parole immediately, and was allowed to remain 
on parole until his detention order" was revoked. 

19.75 Scrutiny has revealed that as manv as 231 
detenus were granted parole on different grounds 
such as, detenus' illness, illness of a family member! 
death of a family member, marriage of a family 
member, etc. This list includes even the members ' 
of banned organisations, like RSS, CPM, etc Re- 
quests from students for grant of parole to enable 
them to take examinations were also considered 
sympathetically. A few parole cases are civen 
below : — * 

(i) Shri Bimlender Chakravorty, a CPM leader 
of District Dibrugarh. was detained on 
August 21, 1975. He was released on 
parole for one month on June 30, 1976 
Parole was extended from time to time 
101 Q77 ° rder Was revoked on January 

(ii) Shri Sib Charan Sarkar of DistrK**Da"rrane 
was detained on August 23, 1975, on 



56 



account of his CPML activities. The re- 
quest of his wife for his release on parole 
in March 1976 on the ground of illness of 
their new born child was rejected on the 
basis of the recommendations from the 
Special Branch. However, the case was re- 
viewed again when a fresh representation 
was received from the detenu's wife in July, 
1976, and Shri Sib Charan was released on 
Parole for one month on September 22 
1976, It was later extended by one" month. 

(hi) Shri Haji Maularia Abdul Kudas wits de- 
tamed under the orders of DM Teipur 
dated October 20, 1975. He was released 
on parole for one month on February 19 
1976 to enable him to look after his wife 
during her. delivery. He was released on 

ft^ timC f)0m A * a 8 

(iv) Shri Ashok Barkatki, a medical student was 
detained under the orders of DM Dibrn- 
garh dated August 28, 1975. He was 
actually arrested on February 9 1976 He 
S™ re I ea S d °, n parole b:om February 16, 
taice his final year examination. He was 
also allowed tostay ,in AMC Hostel durin« 
ttjt^i Paf0l - e Was -extended several 

5 e n h ? Q ?f a S ed on P arole «I Sep- 
tember 2, 1976. He was asm in released 
on parole on September 20, 1976 and ft 

order was revoked on December IS, 1976. 

fuse/ 9 'in 6 tW % Il3S reV ? a,ed that P«<*te w asre . 
rused n three cases on the grounds of de^rh in 

of the cases of refusal of parole are Jven below -1 

C ° ?h1lr7r^T Sheikh / Iia ^ Shri **swM* 

■ 26 1976 ± ara f de !f lned on 0c(oh « 
«£, i 7 i Was refused P ar oIe on the 

b Tit %$*? ° f hJS [ ather °» Kovw- 
+ u> 197 0- because he was suspected 
to be an agent of BDR and his release 
Branch ' feC °^^ed by the Special 

(ii> SaSffilrW deiained ,JI ^ 
1975 ™ 1S M ta f h J ir on September 8, 
i^o, was not granted parole when hk 
mother died in March 1§76 because he 

hLi i ar W ! S , 0f the vjew *at the detenu 
had Jmfe with MNF and he was likelv fn 
underground if he was re%^on 

(iii).Shri Narayan Chand Kataki was detain** 



Naogaon wrote to the Chief Secretary re- 
commending the release of Shri Kataki for 
10 days with effect from October 4, 1975 
DIG Special Branch also sent on Septem- 
ber 26, 1975 the same recommendations. 
It is seen from- the rile that the detenu had 
requested the Jail authorities to provide 
. him with a pair of spectacles as recom- 
mended by the Medical Officer. He resort- 
ed to hunger strike for indefinite period 
from September 29, 1975, as a protest 
against the refusal of the Jail authorities 
to comply with his request.. Shri Golap 
Borbora and Dulal Bhuyan, his co-detenus 
also went on sympathetic hunger strike for 
24 and 12 hours, respectively. File shows 
that the detenu was informed on Septem- 
ber 30, 1975, that the spectacles were not 
admissible under Assam Detention Orders 
and he abandoned the hunger strike the 
same day. When recommendations of the 
Special Branch for the release of Shri 

a a m ° n paro,e with effect fro m October- 
4 1 975 were received in the Political 
Department, Shri S. K. Furkayastha, Joint 
Secretary (Political) recommended two 
days parole only in view of the latest ins- 
tructions from the Government of India 
regarding the agitation announced by the 
Socialist Party units from October 2 1975 ' 
Chief Secretary Shri B. K. Bhuyan record- 

S»-rc folIowjn S note on September 30, 
.ty / j i — 

"Hunger strike in Jail should be seve- 
rely dealt with under the law. Special 
branch may advise transfer of some 
prisoners to Cachar. Discipline must 
i? e ^°f ccd - Th & Jail Superintendents 
should be cautioned. No spectacles at 
Government cost and no parole either 
to Narayan Kataki." 

?Q7< K l aki ^ as inform ed on October 1 
rejected mUm f ° f parole was ' 

(iv) Shri Gopal Borbora of the Socialist Party 

DM ™h W3S 1 et ? nc 3 UIlder the orders of 
DM Dibrugarh dated June 27, 1975 He 
appted,on February 7, 1976 for aran? 
or. parole for one month to enable him tn 
attend the wedding ceremony oMiJs 

AT d r daUghter fixed for March 7 
S ?' M This wa s recommended by the' 
DM Naogaon also. File shows that a 

F 7 "" TT%f S P-^- Branch on 
reoruary 17, 1976 calling for their 
recommendations. Vo reply sSml 

llZnll e \-r C T ed ft'om the S % m c ! 
cial Bianch. File does not contain anv 

Cv) Shri Jaikishan Maheshwari, an allied hoar 

23 197* i£ Lumpur dated September 
^> 1976, after he was released on bail in 



vsxs&mmKBRitxnssssisMiss&st 



57 



a case under the E.C. Act He applied 
for parole on November 26, 1976 oh the 
ground that his daughter's marriage was to 
be solemnised on December 25, 1976- 
The request was rejected on December 21. 
1976, on the basis of the report of the 
Superintendent of Police to the effect that 
the "detenu had 12 or 13 brothers who are 
alive and could look after his daughter's 
wedding." 



(vi) Shri Khagen Gogoi, a Congress ML A, was 
: detained under the orders dated October 
4, 1976 of DM, Jorhat, as an alleged anti- 
social element. As per the grounds' of de- 
tention, he is shown to be responsible for 
the cancellation of a public meeting to be 
held at Kurukani, PS Moran Sibsagar, 
where Shri Hiteshwar Saikia, Home Minis- 
ter, was supposed to explain to the people 
the significance of the 20 Point Program- 
me. It is also mentioned in the grounds 
of detention that Shri Gogoi and his asso- 
ciates were making false propaganda 
regarding the failure of the State Govern- 
ment to implement the 20-Point Economic 
Programme. A telegram containing his 
accusation sent by Shri Gogoi's associate 
Betha Ram Deuri to the Prime Minister 
and the President of India, was also men- 
tioned in the grounds of detention. Shri 
Gogoi was charged with indulging in 
■. character assassination and asking for the 
resignation of the Chief Minister. Shri 
Gogoi sent a petition on October 4, 1976 
for his release on parole on the ground of 
his own illness and illness of his parents. 
No action seems to have been taken till 
November 15, 1976, when he sent an ap- 
plication to DM Jorhat saying that he had 
come to know that his wife was ill. He 
requested the DM to allow him to visitjiis 
house under escort for a few hours. The 
file of the Home Department does not show 
how this request was processed. On Nov- 
ember 2, 1976, the Special Branch sent 
recommendations against grant of parole 
to Shri Gogoi. On December 6, 1976, 
the Special Branch forwarded to Joint, 
Secretary (Political) , a copy of the medical 
report of Dr. M. C. Dutta of Assam 'Medi- 
cal College on Shri Gogoi. This report 
shows that Shri (Dutta had had an attack 
of severe chest pain. Dr. M. C. Dutta con- 
cluded his report by saying that "pain of 
the chest under investigation. IHD is 
difficult to exclude". Shri Gogoi sent 
another application on December i'O, 1976. 
for his release on medical grounds. It was* 
rejected on the recommendations of the 
Special Branch, which wrote that "Shri 
Gogoi may not be granted parole for the 
present in view of his known prejudicial 
activities". File shows that Shri Gogoi was 
released on parole on January I, 1977, 



and his order was revoked on January 15, 
1977. 



BIHAR 

19.77 The total number of detentions under 
MISA, COFEPOSA and DISIR b the State during 
the emergency was as below : 

MISA ... 2360 

COFEPOSA ... 240 

DISIR ... 7747, 

Category wise break-up of detentions under MISA 
is' as follows : 



Political Parties 
Banned Organisations 
Anti-socials, criminals and others 



530 
269 
1561 



19.78 Bihar was one of the few States, where the 
Home Department did carry out a scrutiny of the 
grounds of detentions. In several cases, insufficiency 
or irrelevance of gruunds of detention or legal flaws 
were pointed out by the Section Officer or Assistant 
Secretary (Home) but their objections were over- 
ruled in a majority of cases by the Home Secretary 
and sometimes by the Joint Secretary, who recom- 
mended confirmation of the detention order on 
administrative or political considerations. In some 
ceses even objections by the Joint Secretary were 
overruled by the Home Secretary. Karimulla of 
District Patna, was detained on July 8, 1975 and 
the grounds of his detention referred to a single 
incident of distributing leaflets on July 4', 1975. He 
was also arrested under the DIR. The District 
Magistrate in his forwarding letter wrote, "although 
this is the only material available with me against 
this detenu, the SSP Patna reported to me thai the 
detention was necessary for maintaining public order 
in Burn town and, as such, this detention order was 
issued ( on the basis of single material mentioned 
above". Both the Assistant Secretary- "and Joint 
Secretary (Home) ( pointed out that the order was 
not fit for confirmation as the District Magistrate 
had issued it on the satisfaction of the SSP and not 
on his own satisfaction. But the Home Secretary, 
recommended confirmation of detention order and it 
was confirmed by the Chief Minister. 

19.79 Trie grounds of detention mentioned in the 
case of Dhena Hansda of District Purnea, detained 
on August 30, 1975, related to some incidents of 
agrarian dispute. In this case, the order was based 
on the report of the Station House Officer forwarded 
by the Superintendent of Police. Joint Secretary 
(Home), recorded a note dated September 8 1975 
stating : "In my view, it could be a dangerous pro- 
position to detain a person under MISA without 
taking recourse to normal laws' and in relation to 
facts, which can be suitably dealt with under normal - 
laws, likewise, it would be equally dangerous, if not 
more, to base a detention order merely on the repdrt 
of the officer-in-charge of a Police Station". But 
the Home Secretary recommended confirmation of 

™ e - ???. nt / on order and jt wa s confirmed by the 

Chief Minister. • ■ 



5S 



19.80 The main attack in this State appears to 
have been directed against Chattra Sangharsh Sarniti 
and Jan Sangharsh Sarniti. Quite a number of 
persons were detained for their alleged association 
with the movement launched by Jan Sangharsh 
Sarniti. Many of them were found to have no political 
background and their detentions were ordered merely 
on the basis of alleged participation in one or two 
secret meetings or a stray incident of alleged slogan 
shouting against the Government. Many of them 
were already arrested earlier under the DIS1R and 
subsequently detention orders under the MISA were 
also issued Against them. 

19.81 Harideo Pandey and Shatrughuna Kumar, 
both of District Madhubani were detained on Octo- 
ber 3, 1975, on the basis of a single alleged incident 
°f shouting anti-emergency slogans on "October 3, 
1975. The grounds of detention did not indicate 
any political background of these persons. Mahesh 
Sharma of district Monghyr was detained on March 
6, 1976. The grounds of detention referred *o two 
, cases of the year 1974 and one report of participat- 
ing in a secret meeting on July 4, 1975. The Dis- 
trict Magistrate's report mentioned, "Shri Mahesh 
Sharma was found holding a secret meeting at the 
residence of Shri Rabish Chandra Verma in defiance 
of prohibitory orders". It is not clear what was meant 
by prohibitory orders in relation to a secret meeting 
inside somebody's residence. However, the detention 
was confirmed. 

19.82 MISA was also used against 125 students 
A majority of the students were detained on account 
of their alleged involvement in the agitational pro- 
grammes of Chhatra Sangharsh Sarniti. In several 
.cases, ■ the ajrounds. only referred to their activities 
during the Bihar bundh in 1973-74 and no particular 
activity nearabout the time of declaration of Fmer- 
gency or thereafter was indicated. Even the activities 
pertaining to the year 1973-74 were by and large 
confined to the violation of the prohibitory orders 
and participation in anti-Government proceedings 
without revealing any trend towards violence. It was 
revealed that a majority of students, who had come 
to adverse notice of the administration at that time 
were singled out for detention under the MISA after 
the declaration of emergency. In some cases, students 
were detained merely on the basis of a single alleoed 
incident during the emergency, while no previous 
agitational background was shown against them. 

* • l 9 i£ 3 lT L the J*®? of Sudhi "dra Raj Hans of Dis- 
trict Monghyr, detained on November 7, 1975 the 
¥£?? of^ detention referred to four incidents of 
1974 and two of 1975. One incident of January 
referred to a secret meeting in which the detenu 

?W^,,Sf- rtl r? ated 1 il L t ^ in * a dccision * boycott 
w o? U ?o^ Day , CeIebrations - Anoto ^ident of 
June 27, 1975, referred to the detenu's alleged parti- 
cipation in the act of forcing the shopkeepers to close 
their shops. Section Officer in the Home Department 
pointed out that the grounds were not proximate to 
the date of detention and. the order was not fit for 
confirmation. But the Assistant Secretary recom- 
mended the case for confirmation and the confirma- 
tion order was issued on November 20, 1975. 



19.84 Shri Ashok Kumar Varma, District 
Hazaribagh, was detained on April 4, 1976. The 
grounds of detention referred" to one incident of 
October 16, 1975, when he was alleged to have 
taken a decision for pasting wall posters, which 
appeared on December 10, 1975. The grounds did 
n,ot mention that he was caught in the act of pasting 
wall posters nor any material was produced to 
substantiate the allegation that he had decided to 
commit this act on October 16, 1975. It is note- 
worthy _ that his detention was ordered almost 
about six months after his alleged decision to paste 
wall posters; and 4 months after the appearance 
of the wall posters. 

19.85 Ashok Kumar Singh of District Monghyr- 
was detained on October 23, '■ 1975. The grounds 
of detention referred'. to 3 incidents, one of Septem- 
ber 1974 and the other of January 1975. One 
more incident of June 27, 1975" was mentioned, 
in which he was alleged to have moved about the 
town with his associates to force the shopkeepers 
to close their shops. He was arrested later on and 
was facing trial in respect of the alleged incident 
at the time of his detention under the MISA. In 
this case the Home Secretary noted on November 
1, 1975, stating, "the materials are somewhat old 
and lack in specific details. It is also not clear 
whether Shri Singh is on bail or not". But he 
recommended confirmation of the detention in view, 
of the agitational programme of Chhatra Sangharsh 
Sarniti and the detention was confirmed. 

19.86 Criminals and anti-socials comprised 
about 2/3rd of the total detentions under MISA 
m this State. Despite the instructions of Govern- 
ment of India not to use the powers under MISA 
against such criminals, whose activities did not 
impinge on public order, quite a number of such 
persons were detained under the MISA. The scru- 
tiny of detention cases has revealed that quite often 
the distinction between public order and law and 
order was completely forgotten and MISA was 
used against ordinary and petty criminals, whose 
acts could not be regarded as affecting public order 
in any manner. As in some other States also the 
police in this State chose to use MISA as a short 
cut to put persons behind bars and avoid recourse 
to normal laws, which required detailed investiga- 
tion and prosecution. , 

19.87 Shri Sukh Pal Taiwala of District Ranchi' 
was detained on August 8, 1975 on the grounds of 
committing offences in respect of railway property. 
Grounds of detention referred to only two cases, 
one of July, 1971 and another of March, 1973! 
The Assistant Secretary, Home, pointed out during 
scrutiny that the grounds were old and the case 
was not fit for confirmation but the JS, Home, 
recommended confirmation of the detention and it 
was confirmed by the CM. In the case of Murli. 
Dhar Banka of District Ranchi, detained on August 
8, 1975, the grounds of detention referred to a 
single case under sections 420/1 20(b), 467, 468 
IPC of March 25, 1973. The detention was con- 
firmed in spite of objection by the Assistant 
Secretary, Home. Shri Banka continued in detention" 



59 



till' March 23, 1977 and even in the periodical 
reviews, his case was not considered for revocation. 

19.88 Bohoran Yadav of District Bhagalpur was 
detained on October 23, 1975. The grounds of 
detention referred to three crimes of burglary. In 
this case, Joint Secretary (Home) noted — 

"It has been made clear to all DMs, a 
number of times, that a person cannot be 
detained' under MlSA just for any indivi- 
dual crime because the acts constitute 
of threat-- to "law and order and not to 
public order. It has also been made 
clear that individual crime comes under 
the purview of public order only if it is 
accompanied by some other act affecting 
the even tempo of life Of the. community 
as a whole. Some judgments of the 
Supreme Court -delivered On the subject 
and laying down distinction between law 
and order and public order have also 
been circulated. Despite all thes^ instruc- 
tions, some of the DMs and SPs continue 
to commit mistakes, and issue orders 
of detention on grounds which do not 
strictly conform to the test of law. This 
testimony has to be discouraged regard- 
less of the antecedents of the persons 
involved. Moreover, the Government of 
India have also categorically stated thai 
detention, order should not be made 
unless the grounds satisfy the conditions 
laid down under sub-section (1) of 
section 3 of MISA." 

The detention . order in this case was not 
confirmed. 

19.89 Scrutiny of cases has revealed that in a 
large number of caseSj detention orders were issued 
on the basis of reports sent by SHOs. After June 
1976, the SPs were directed to give a certificate 
ab'out correctness of the material sent to the DM 
for issuing detention order. But even after this the 
SPs or Dy. SPs went on merely forwarding tht 
report of the SHOs in a somewhat routine mannerl - 
It was also noticed that in several cases, details of 
criminal cases instituted against the persons concer- 
ned were not mentioned in the grounds and mostly 
no previous convictions were shown. The Police 
report indicated criminal cases in which the detenu 
was allegedly involved, but the outcome of the 
prosecution was rarely indicated and in some cases 
even acquittal was shown. 

19.90 23 public servants were detained under 
MISA. Some were detained on grounds of alleged' 
corruption also. Shri Radhey Shyam Pandey, 
Assistant Engineer of District Siwan was detained 
on August 22, 1976 on the allegation of being 
associated with Chhatra Sangharsh Samiti and 
RSS f In this case Shri R. L. Mishra, Joint Secretary, 
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, 
sent a communication dated November 23, 1976 
to the Chief Secretary of Bihar. An extract from 
.this communication is cited below : — - 

"Radhe Shyam Pandey was detained 
under MISA on 22-8-1976 as the D.M., 



Siwan found his activities prejudicial to 
■ the security of the Slate and maintenance 
of public order. After his appointment as 
an Assistant Engineer- in the Tubewell 
Division, Siwan, Radhe Shyam Pandey 
developed some differences with the senior 
colleagues, namely, Bharat Singh, Execu- 
tive Engineer, Tubewell Divn. Siwan and 
D. K. Yadava, S.D.Q^of the same 
Division over the issue of passing a bill 
of a contractor, who had allegedly bribed 
the above mentioned Ex. Engr, The 
t Departmental colleagues pressed upon 

Radhe Shyam not to take this issue, but 
the latter did not budge under their pres- 
sure. Radhe Shyam Pandey is an put- 
spoken man in the habit of sending 
complaints to VIPs regarding the bung- 
lings of his own departmental officers. He 
took up the issue of alleged bungling of 
Rs. 40 lakhs by officials of ihis depart- 
ment. He sent information alleging mis- 
appropriation to the concerned high 
officials of the State Govt, and demanded 1 
an enquiry into the affairs of the Tubewell 
Division, Siwan. This brought him to the 
adverse notice of his department and he 
was suspended for some time. Pandey, 
therefore, went to Delhi and* sat on 
Dharna in front of the Rashtrapati 
Bhavan demanding justice. It is reported 
that the senior officers at Delhi assured 
him to look into the matter and he was 
thereafter reinstated. His reinstatement 
created anxiety among the corrupt officials 
of his department, who considered* him 
a trouble maker. They started pulling 
strings and finally succeeded in winning 
over the D.M., who issued orders for a 
detention of Shri Pandey. It would, there- 
fore, appear that the detention of Shri 
Radhe Shyam Pandey was not bona 
fide." 

Despite his communication, Shri Radhe Shyam 
continued in detention up to March 21, 1977. 

19.91 Four-monthly review of detention cases 
was carried out by a Review Committee comprising 
Divisional Commissioner DIG (Range), concerned, 
DM and SP. Scrutiny of cases has revealed that 
the Review Committee recommended revocation of 
detention in very rare casesl In several cases, the 
recommendation of the Review Committee for 
release of a detenu was not accepted. Shri Lalua 
Rawat of District Sitamarhi and seven others were 
detained on January 22, 1976. They included five 
members . of one family. Grounds of detention 
referred to a family dispute relating to property. 
On May 3, 1976, the Review Committee recom- 
mended revocation of their orders of detention. 
But this was not agreed to by the State Government 
and their detention continued till February 3, 1977. 
One of the detenus Kishori Rawat died during 
detention. 

19.92 Several eases were noticed in which the 
DMs failed to sent their reports and. necessary 



tut 



60 



documents for confirmation of detention orders to 
the State Governments within the stipulated period 
of 1.5 days. This resulted in the detenus remaining 
in illegal detention after the expiry of the 15 days' 
period. (Cases of Chhedi Dewan of District Battia, 
Shatrughana Chaubey, District Bhojpur). In the 
case of Kamla Raj of District Rohtas, the order 
of detention was issued on February 23, 1976, but 
the papers were received in the Home Department 
after the expiry of the statutory period of 15 days. 
Consequently, the order of detention was not 
confirmed by the State Government. But from the 
scrutiny of the file, it is revealed that the person 
continued in detention till April 7, 1976. The 
Additional Secretary noted* on April 16, 1976, 
"Prima facie this appears to be a sad case involving 
violation of legal requirements." The Home Depart- 
ment again wrote to the DM to revoke the order. 
It appears from, the file that the DM issued another 
detention order on May 5, 1976. This was also not 
confirmed by the State Government. Thereafter, 
the DM issued another detention order on May 22, 
1976, and this time the State Government confir- 
med the order of detention, 

19.93 In some cases even though the orders of 
detention were not confirmed by the State Govern- 
ment, the DMs redetained a person on similar 
grounds shortly afterwards. Shri Alakh Niranjan of 
District Novada was detained on December 1, 

;1975. His detention was not confirmed by the State 
Government as the Home Department pointed out 
that the grounds of detention did not refer to any 
specific incident and were too vague for confirma- 
tion. Accordingly, the DM was advised to revoke his 
order of detention. The DM redetained Shri Alakh 
Niranjan vide his fresh order dated December 19, 
1975 and the grounds of detention referred to a 
report from SHO, Warshaliganj stating that Shri 
Alakh Niranjan was found shouting slogans against 
the Government on November 25, 1975, It is 
significant to note that jkst detention order against 
Shri Alakh Niranjan was passed 5 days after this 
alleged' incident and yet this incident was not 
mentioned in the grounds of detention at that time 
The case of Shri Sit'aram Singh of District Novada 
is also similar. 

19.94 Requests for parole were decided at the 
State Government level and there were very few 
cases in which request for parole was refused. How- 
ever, in the case of granting parole to student 
detenus desirous of appearing at an examination, 
some strictness was observed. The practice followed 
was that student detenus were allowed to take 
examinations if the College/University agreed t'o 
hold them inside the fail premises. However, for 
practicals, which could not be conducted inside 
the jail, 'students were released on parole. It was 
also seen that while in some cases parole was not 
granted on such strong grounds, as sickness of 
husband' or daughter, it was granted readily to 
some anti-socials on similar or less serious grounds. 

19.95 Suit Mohini Jha of District Darbhanea 
was refused r>aroJe when her husband fell sick in 
January, 1976. Her request for release on parole to 



undergo operation was turned down and she had to 
take treatment in the jail. There was deterioration 
in her health in June, 1976, but parole was not 
granted despite medical- recommendation. She was 
ultimately granted parole only in November, 1976. 

19.96 Shri Mahavir Prasad Yadav, detained on 
February 10, 1976, was refused parole when his 
wife 'fell ill in May, 1976. In the case of Shri 
Ram Shreshtha Rai of District Samastipur, request 
for parole on account of the illness of his widowed 
sister, entirely dependent upon him, was turned 
down on August 13, 1976. Another request on the 
same ground was turned down on October 21, 
1976. Then in November 1976, he applied tor 
parole saying that' he wanted to use this period for 
clearing some Government dues. On this ground, 
parole was granted. 

19.97 Shri Rattan Lai Das of District Purnea 
was detained on account of criminal activities. His 
.son submitted an application to the Chief Minister 
alleging that his father was wrongly detained and 
was also ill. The CM granted one month's parole 
to the detenu on this application. Similarly, another 
detenu Shri Rashid Kunjara of District Hazaribagh, 
detained on account of his criminal activity, was 
directly granted paro'le for one month on orders 
from CM's Secretariat. 



GUJARAT 

19.98 The total number of detentions under 
MISX and other Preventive Laws in this State was 
as below : — 



MISA 

COFEPOSA 

DISIR 



1762 

307 

2643 



Out of 1762 persons detained under MISA, 91 
were Pakistani nationals and in respect of 16 
detenus unamended provisions of the MISA were 
applied. Thus, the total number of persons detained 
by using section 16A was 1655. The break up of 
cases of detention under MISA is as follows : — 



Political Parties 
Banned Organisations 
Anti-socials, criminals 
and others 



404 
135 

1223 



The largest number among political detenus . was 
of members and "associates of BJS (247) while 
RSS members sympathisers (128) topped the list 
among banned organisations. 

19.99 At' the time of proclamation of Emer- 
gency, the Janata Morcha Government was in 
power and there were no detentions at that time 
on political grounds. The spate of detentions of 
persons with political affiliations commenced from 
March 13, 1976, after the President's Rule was 
proclaimed in the State on March 12, 1976. After 



■ 'smmssmmm®0M&3SKS. 



61 



t this date approximately 6(3p persons were detained: 
under the MISA on political grounds. Immediately 
after the jKoslaintftdon of the President's Rule on 
March 12, 1976, the State Government sent wire- 
less messages to .all districts mentioning names of 
.persons who were to be considered for detentions. A 
large number of persons, allegedly connected with 
political opposition parties, like the BJS, Congress 
(0) and Socialists were detained in the months of 
March atfd April 1976. 

19.10^ The detention orders were passed by the 
District Magistrates on receipt of a report from 
the Superintendents of Police concerning alleged 
objectionable activities. For confirmation of the 
orders, the cases were processed in the Home 
Department and final orders of confirmation were 
passed by the Home Minister during the Janata 
regime and" by the Governor during the period of 
the President's Rule. The procedure of obtaining 
opinion from the Law Department as adopted in 
some States, like U.P., was not followed here. The 
Home Department had kept a cyclostyled note 
mentioning only the relevant sections of the MISA 
and the procedure for confirmation of detention 
orders in which particulars of the alleged grounds 
of detentions were not mentioned. This cyclostyled 
note was put up to the Home Minister or Governor 
for orders and* only in a few cases some officer of 
the Home Department gave an opinion against 
confirming the order, but it was mostly ignored. In 
the case of Mohindra Bhai Gopal Das Desai, 
District Kaira, the grounds mentioned were that 
he had participated in Maha Gujarat agitation in 
; 1956-57, had gone on fast in August 1972 to 
support the demand for equal distribution of sugar 
in rural and urban areas and in 1976 had threaten- 
ed to start an agitation on the issue of shortage of 
edible oil. The Under Secretary, Home, noted that 
the ground were insufficient. But the detention was 
confirmed* by the State Government. 

19.10 1- According-to the information given by the 
State Government in 188 eases, the detention orders 
, passed by the District . authorities were not 
confirmed, ■>■■ 

19,102 In the case of political detenus, it was 
found that immediately after the fall of the Janata 
Morcha Government on March 12, 1976, detentions 
were ordered on the basis of reports of the police 
stating that the detenu was either a member or 
sympathiser of one of the opposition parties consti- 
tuting the Janata Morcha, namely, Jan Sangh, Cong- 
ress (G), Socialists, etc. and after the fall of the 
Janata Government, he was. likely to indulge in 
activities prejudicial to law and order or emergency. 
Ih a number of cases, no recent activity of the person 
Was mentioned. The police report only gave details 
of his participation in opposition party meetings and 
agitations in the years prior to 1975. Particularly in 
the case of detenus belonging to Jan Sangh, this prac- 
tice was followed in a majority of cases. Tara Chand 
Rijhumal Sindhi of District Sabarkantha was detain- 
ed on March. 13, 1976. Thfc grounds of detention 
given in his case only revealed that he worked for 
Jan Sangh and in 1971, he had incited communal 
S/25 HA/78— 9 



, passions. It was also meationed that he was making 
complaints against Government officers, Shri Narain 
Bhai Chottu Bhai Naik of Ahmedabad was detained 
on July 16, 1976, on the ground that he and five 
others were active Jan Sangh workers and it was 
feared that their activity will disturb public order. 
Police Commissioner's report did not mention any 

■ specific activity regarding this detenu. 

19.103 Shri Raman Lai Hiralal Joshi of District 
Panchmahal was detained on March 3, 1976, on a 
police report that he was an active Jan Sangh worker 
since 1968 and had participated in various meetings 
and agitations of the party between 1969 and 
February 1974. The detention was confirmed but 
shortly afterwards the Governor called for the file and 
ordered on April 13, 1976 that his release be re- 
commended to the Central Government. But the 
Government of India did not agree to the proposal 
and he continued in detention till January 23, 1977. 
Shri Chandrachud Singh, District Banaskantha was 
detained on July 20, 1976 on a police report that 
he was a fiery speaker and a member of SSP. In 
1973, he had addressed a meeting at Deesa criticis- 
ing the Government. Thereafter, he went out of 
the State and on his return in July 1976, started 
spreading news that he had come with a message 
from Shii Jayaprakash Narayan. 

19.104 In 19 cases, the orders of detention were 
issued directly by the State Government. A scrutiny 
of these cases has revealed that in a few cases, 
the Governor himself directly ordered the detention 
of persons without there being any material against 
them on record. In some cases, the orders of de- 
tention were probably issued at the instance of 
local Congressmen. Shri Khodi Das Patel of 
District Rajkot was detained under the order of the 
Governor on November 17, 1976, It was noticed 
that one Shri Sudhir Joshi, Secretary, Rajkot City 
Congress, had sent a list of 149 persons of Rajkot 
City alleging them to be members of RSS and anti- 
socials. This list was referred to DIG, CID by the 
State Government. After verification, it was report-. 
ed that out of 149 persons, sufficient grounds were 
kot available in respect of 66 persons and Khodi 

Das Patel was one of them. Apart from this, one 
Manohar Singh Jadeja also sent a letter dated 
September 6, 1976, to the Adviser asking for deten- 
tion of Khodi Das Patel and alleging that his case 
had not been considered seriously by the authorities. 
The order of the Governor dated November 17, 
1976, reads, "... Shri Khodi Das Patel may be 
put under MISA. I understand that he is a RSS 
worker". 

19.105 In the case of 4 persons of Unjha, Dist- 
rict Mehsana, the Governor passed the orders of 
detention without mentioning any specific grounds. 
The following extract from the note of Under Sec- 
retary, Home, dated January 5, 1977, reveals the 
facts and circumstances of the case : 

"The following four persons of Unjha, 
District Mehsana were ordered to be de- 
tained under MISA under orders passed 
by the Governor on 12th July 1976, with 
a view to preventing them from acting in 



62 



a manner prejudicial to the maintenance 
of public order : — 

1. Shri Naram Lallubhai Patel, 

2. Shri Anant Mulshankar Raval, 

3. Shri Kantilal Ambalal Patel, 

4. Prof. Indravadan Shukla. 

There was no material. on papers with us 
in support of the orders of detention pass- 
ed against all these four persons on 15th 
July 1976. On receipt of representation 
from Prof.. Indravadan Shukla and his wife, 
the report of the District Magistrate, Meh- 
sana was called for, who intimated vide 
his letter dated 4th August 1976 that the 
police records do not reveal anything 
about the criminal or political activities 
of Prof. Indravadan Shukla. The DM 
further intimated that Prof. Indravadan 
Shukla had not taken any part in 
activities against the emergency nor had 
taken part in the activities of any political 
party. The DM had therefore recom- 
mended his release from detention. This 
report was submitted, to the Governor 
on 6th August 1976, who had ordered 
continuance of detention vide orders at 
page 9/N. The papers were there- 
after again called by the Governor's 
office and the Governor had ordered 
release of the detenu on one month's 
parole on 24th August 1976. In the mean- 
time the Government of India^ Ministry of 
Home Affairs, New Delhi, vide their 'letter 
dated 7th September 1976 sent a copy 
of the letter dated 25th August 1976 
from Shri P. M. Joshi, MP addressed to 
Shri Om Mehta, Minister of State for 
Home Affairs, Govt, of India, New Delhi 
requesting the State Government to 
intimate full facts relating to the issue 
of warrants under MISA against above- 
named four persons. Shri P. M, Joshi, 
MP in his letter to Shri Om Mehta 
stated that he had been informed that 
Shn Shankarlal Guru an ex-MLA of the 
place had made certain allegations aeainst 
above-named persons to the effect that 7 they 
were the people who disturbed the meeting 
of the Prime Minister when she went to 
Lmjha during the last Assembly Election 
m Gujarat. Shri Joshi further mentioned 
in his letter that the real reason was that 
there was one Unjha Education Trust 
which runs a few colleges there, that the 
three persons who are trustees and Shri 
Shukla who i s also Professor made it 
difficult for Shri Shankarlal Guru to ge 
hold of. the Trust and that in order to 
remove them from the whole show he had 
mis-informed the authorities in this case 
As stated above, there was no material 
available on file with us in support of the 
orders passed by the GovernoTfor the 
detention of the. above four persons. It 
was, therefore, difficult to decide whether 



the detention of these four persons ordered 
. . by the Governor was at the instance of 
ex-MLA Shri Shankarlal Guru. It may, 
however, be mentioned that Shri Shankar- 
lal Guru, by chance, happened to meet the 
Home Secretary at the Bungalow of the 
Chief Minister (Designate) on 24th Decem- 
ber 1976 when he had given two photo- 
stat copies of letters to the Secretary. One 
of the two photostat copies related to a 
letter written by one Shri Mukesh to one 
Shri Kantibhai from Baroda Jail and the 
other one was a press matter issued by 
Mantri, Jan Sangh Patan, Mandal in May 
1975. These photostat copies have been 
sent to DIG, GID (Int.) for enquiry and 
submitting a report. It is, therefore, not unr 
likely that these detentions might have been 
ordered by the Governor on the basis of 
certain material that might have been fur- 
nished by Shri Shankarlal Guru to the" 
Governor. Since there was no material 
with us to give a suitable reply to the 
K , Government of India to the letter at page 

103/c, the papers were sent to the Sec- 
retary to the Governor to enlighten the 
Department about the grounds of deten- 
tions of four persons to enable the De- 
partment to furnish a reply to the Gov- 
ernment of India- The papers, however, 
remained there till they were called back 
for considering further action, on 22nd 
December 1976." 

The note of the Under Secretary further states ; 

"The Government of India have sent a 
D.O. letter dated 15th December 1976 
stating that it is not unlikely that the detenu 
might have been detained due to differen- 
ces with some local political leader who 
might have prevailed with administration to 
detain Professor Shukla and others. The 
Government of India, therefore, desired 
the Stale Government to make enquiries 
to ascertain whether there had been any 
misuse of power in this case and to inform 
them of the position in due course. As 
mentioned above, the orders to detain 
Professor Shukla and others were passed 
under the orders of Governor. The ques- 
tion of getting any enquiries made with a 
view to ascertaining whether there had 
been any misuse of power does not there- 
fore arise. The DIG, CID (Int) was 
informally asked to furnish details of 
Objectionable activities indulged in by these 

n£ r P ^? n A° f ^ niha ^accordingly the 
unj, CiD (Int) has given a note showing 
the activities of these four persons to the 

(p Cre i55/ c y'' 0n 3 ° th December 1976 

The Additional Chief Secretary, made the follow- 
l 5# ^^ndation on this note which was accept- 
ed by the then State Minister for Home : 

"The detentions were. made under the 
orders of the Governor who must -have- 



63 



the material before him. We do not have 
access to the material. As such, we can 
make no comment nor are we competent 
to make any inquiry into the matter. 

2, The letter from the GOI at P. 153/c 
has been sent to us at the level of Under 
Secretary on 14th December. In the cir- 
cumstances, I suggest we may send no 
reply to the Government of India at this 
stage. If any reminder comes, we shall 
consider the matter at that time. 



Sd/- 

K. SIVARAJ, 
A.C.S. (H). 29/1. 

Sd/- 
J. MEHTA, 
M(H).31/1." 

the detention order of Professor Shukla, had, 
however, been revoked earlier on December 15. 
1976. 

19.106 In the case of Shri Lallubhai Sheth also, 
the Governor passed the following order of deten- 
tion : 

"Shri Lallubhai Sheth of Saverkundla is 
carrying on activities against emergency 
1 and national unity. It is necessary that 
he may be detained under MISA. Secretary 
(H.D.) may therefore take immediate 
action in this regard (30-8-1 976)." 
i 
his detention order was issued by the State 
Government on August 31, 1976. 

1 9. 1 07 26 students, 3 3 teachers and 1 2 journalists- 
were detained under MISA during the emergency. 
In the case of students, grounds of detention related 
mostly to their participation in Nav Nirman agita- 
tion in Gujarat in the year 1974 and in many 
cases, no recent activity of the person concerned was 
mentioned in the grounds. Shri Hemchandra 
Bechare of District Baroda was detained 
on March 13, 1976 on the ground that in 1973, he 
took active part in Nav Nirman agitation and was 
also' a worker of Jan Sangh. After the fall of 
Janata Morcha Government, he was bound to resort 
to more violent activities. Shri Prakash Preshthala 
of District Rajkot was detained on March 15, 1976 
on the ground that he had taken part in students' 
agitations in the past. On February 5, 1976, he along 
with other students went to the Vice-chancellor to 
demand change in the education system. . Shri 
Akshay Maganla! Desai of District Baroda was de- 
tained on March 13, 1976 on a single report of a 
Police Inspector, endorsed by the Deputy SP men- 
tioning that he was one of the organisers of the 
students' Action Committee, arid had taken active 
part in the Nav Nirman agitation in 1974. After 



State elections in 1975, he had been quiet. Even 
though he had not indulged in any disorderly con- 
duct so far, he was bound to organise agitational 
activities now, as he belonged to BJS. 

19.108 Some journalists were detained on the 
ground that they had been opposing the police and 
local administration in the past. In the case of 
Arvind Chamanlal Bhatt of District Sabarkantha, 
case history sent by police referred to some police 
Roznamcha reports, lodged against him between 
1965 and 1974. In these reports there 
were general references that he was. a mischievous 
person, opposed to the police and had tried to in- 
fluence Government servants. On February 21, 
1976, he had misbehaved with the Deputy Chair- 
man of Himat Nagar District Panchayat. His de- 
tention was confirmed but later, on his application 
for grant of parole, the Home Secretary put up a 
note on August 13, 1976 stating, "It will indeed be 
a serious matter if on these flimsy matters one is 
being detained under MISA. In my submission, 
this is a clear case of taking vendetta against a man 
who is a Press correspondent and who has perhaps 
been too. critical of the local Officials, particularly, 
police". He was released on 2 months' parole and 
the DM was asked to send a special- report about his 
activities after 1£ months. But no such report was 
sent by the DM. The Home Department noted 
on December 20, 1976 : 

"The DM did not submit a special report 
about the detenu's conduct but sent a 
report for continuing the detention .... 
This appears to be a case of misuse of 
powers. The question for consideration 
is whether an inquiry should be made as 
to who is responsible for the misuse of 
power." 

But no inquiry was ordered and the District 
Magistrate was asked only to be careful in future. 
However, recommendation fee revocation .of the de- 
tention was sent to the Central Government, which 
was approved. 

19.109 According to information given by the 
State Government in reply to Commission's question- 
naire on detentions, 15 Government servants were 
detained under MISA mostly on the ground of pre- 
judicial activities or being anti-socials. There were 
no detentions on grounds Of corruption or opposition 
to family planning. 

19.110 With regard to banned organisations, it, 
was seen that persons were detained mostly on a 
general police report stating that they were connect- 
ed with the RSS but no specific activity either present 
or past was mentioned. In several cases, a combin- 
ed general report against 20 persons or more was. 
sent by the police giving brief notes in respect of 
each of them which also did not reveal any specific 
prejudicial activity except the fact that they were 
sympathisers or members of the RSS. In District 
Mehsana, a combined report was sent by thelDeputy 
SP proposing detention of 31 persons alleged to be 



64 



associated with the RSS and BJS. The ground 
mentioned in respect of some of them were: Shri 
Keshubhai Patel of Kadi : "He is a BJS worker and 
sympathiser of RSS. Interested in all activities that 
may oppose emergency". Shri Ramesh Chandra 
Agrawal, "He wields good influence amongst students 
and is also interested in creating students' unrest". 
In the case of Shri Keshav Lai Bir Chand Khara 
Of District Amreli, the grounds only mentioned that 
he was spreading rumours and instigating his 
supporters to do objectionable acts but no specific 
activity was mentioned nor was it specified as to 
what rumours he had spread. 

19.111 Quite a large number of persons was de- 
tained under the category of criminals and anti- 
socials comprising prohibition offenders', bootleggers 
and persons involved in ordinary offences like theft, 
assault, quarrelling, etc. In several cases even 
though the police enclosed a list of offences in 
which the detenus were said to be involved in the 
past, very few convictions were shown. In the case 
of Shri Koli Duda Bhima of District Junagarh de- 
tamed on July 2, 1976, the criminal offences 
referred to m the grounds of his detention pertained 
to the years 1968, 1972, 1974 and 1975, but only 
in one case under Bombay Police Act, he was shown 
to have been convicted. Shri Merganga Hathi of 
District Junagarh was detained on September 29 

^ 6> « but only one ^fcafo&i offence 'under section 
332 IPC of the year 1974 and one Spending criminal 
.case, were mentioned in the grounds.* 

19 112 MISA was used freely against prohibition 
offenders In the case of Shri Jagulaxman of District 
Anmedabad, detained on September 6 1976, on 
the grounds of "bootlegging activity", the Under 
secretary, Home, put up a note stating that in view 
of the recent instructions of Government of India 
it may be Considered whether declaration should be 
confirmed or not. The detention was confirmed by 
the State Government. 

19.113 In Anmedabad, a number of persons in- 
volved m ordinary criminal offences 5 to 15 years 
before the emergency, were detained under MISA 
and the on y recent criminal activity mentioned in the 
grounds related to one or two incidents of assault on 
nw'n? Hi? n V n the r ^ a . r a few da ^ before the 
SSrt «! *T^ n --A Jt w-dsrificant to note that no 
report of such incidents or assault was lodged with 

n e m P , nv C oV ^ State H ° me D ^Partment alio noted 

beTZd n h ?Tf CaS ? S 'f at DOt such reIian <* should 
be paced on these incidents of 1976. In the case 

14 wf™' DiS , riCt A ^ a bad, Gained on June 
1 l 4 ; I976 A severaI convictions for petty offences 
between the years 1932 to 1964 were n£ntffi£ 
the^grounds and two ■ incidents of commSi™ 
robbery m^e bazar with Rampuri Sfc o 

^e%^ I Ho 6 Dle n n JUn S 12 ' ^^^mentfoned 
xne ;>uite. Home Department noted, "Offences arp 
very old and not such reliance should be rS on 

ffrSer T° f i 976 "' » ut the detention Safcon^ 
finned In the case of Shri Yusaf Gut Pathan 
several offences between the years 1951 and^67 
were mentioned in the grounds and thereafter two 
we«dfed r ° bblng *"*"* in the b ^ b 1976 



19.114 In review of the detention cases, the pro- 
cedure followed in the Home Department was that 
the cases were put up to the Home Minister at the 
time of Janata Government rule and to the Adviser 
during the President's ' rule, for final orders. No 
separate Review Committee was formed to consider 
review cases. However, no reasons are found to have 
been given in the files before the issue of release 
orders. 

19.115 In grant of parole to MISA detenus, no 
clear-cut procedure- was laid down_in the -beginning. 
During the early month of emergency, the cases for 
granting parole were put up to the Home Secretary, 
who, in most cases, passed the final orders. However, 
some cases went up to the Adviser also. Later on, 
due to rush of work, the Under Secretary, Home, 
was given authority to grant parole up to a period 
of seven days and Deputy Secretary, Home, dealt 
with the requests for longer periods. ' 

, 19.116 The following extracts from the reply of 
the State Government to the Commission's question- 
naire on detentions would explain the policy regarding 
the grant of parole to students, teachers, office bearers 
of municipal bodies : 

"Government considered the cases of parole 
to MISA detenus on merit of each case, 
usually in the following, circumstances :— - 

(a) Detenu's own sickness or any mem- 
bers of their families including such 
cases in which they are required to 
undergo surgical treatment; 

(b) bona fide students to enable them to 
prosecute their studies; 

(c) to teachers and. professors on the lines 
of the students; 

(d) on compelling grounds, such as, mar- 
riage of daughter or anv '.it her depen- 
dent of a detenu; death of a nearest 
relative, etc. 

The policy adopted by Government to decide the 
requests for parole to the above category of detenus 
is as follows :- — 

Students : It was decided to grant long 
parole on selective basis up to a period of 
3 months to genuine students initially for 
7 days for admission and subsequently for 
the remaining period for prosecution of 
their studies. 

Teachers and Professors : Some teachers 
bad. requested for grant of parole to enable 
tnem to attend the colleges/schools on the 
opening day of the new term after vacation 
so that they do not lose fhe vacation pay 
and there is no break in their service This 
was agreed to. (It wa s also decided to 
grant long parole to professors and teachers 
atter considering such cases on merits ) 



mmuwetssi*!': 



vztimtmtmmmmimsmi'SSismi 



65 



Parole to office bearers, such <as, 
Deputy Mayors, Chairmen of Com- 
mittees and others of the local bodies: 

On 17th March, 1976, Government had 
decided to grant parole for the minimum 
number of 2 to 3 days only to enable them 
■to attend the meetings of* the Committees 
and General Board. This policy was modi- 
fied on 8th May, 1976 and it was decided 
not to grant parole to Members of the 
Committees to attend the meetings of such 
boards, but it was decided to grant parole 
only for elections within civic bodies. On 
6th September, 1976, this policy was again 
modified vide note dated 6th September, 
1976, which was approved by the Govern- 
ment. It was decided accordingly as per 
informal adyice from the Government of 
India that security prisoners were not relea- 
sed elsewhere in the countrv for the stated 
purpose. Government, therefore, decided 
not to grant parole to the security prisoners 
of this category either to attend the meet- 
ings or for election purpose within the 
Civil Bodies." 

l9 u li 2 In SOme cases ' P arole was granted directly 
by the Home Minister on applications presented to 
him and in many such cases the grounds on which 
parole was requested were not such as were normally 
regarded as acceptable. Shri Deva Arjan of District 
Junagadh was granted parole for one month by the 
Home Minister on an application by detenu's wife 
stating that they had 40 bighas of land and agricul- 
tural operations were being hampered due to the 
detention of her husband. Similarly, Shri Arjanji 
Gigaji Mer of Junagadh was granted parole for one 
month on an application by his father stating that 
his son was running a shop of oil engine and f=pare 
parts and due to his detention the business was 
suffering and the family was in trouble. In many 
cases, requests for parole on apparently stronger 
reasons were refused, as the applications 
were processed through the Home Department 
Shri Natha China of District Bhui was 
refused parole for attending to his wife 
who had recently gone through a delivery. This was 
done On the basis of DM's report that she had two 
sisters who could look after her. Shri Bachubha 
Bhojubha of. district Rajkot was refused parole on 
the death of his grandmother on the ground that his 
rather was available for her last rites. 

19.118 There were a few cases in which delays in 
getting the parole applications or verification reports 
from district authorities or delays in Home Depart- 
ment resulted in denial of parole to the detenus 
concerned. Shn Arsi Munja of Junagadh applied for 
parole on July 26, 1976 stating that his brother had 
died! oa July 25, 1976.' On the same day, the Jail 
Superintendent reported, the matter to the Home 
Department by a' telegram, which- was received in the 
Department on July 27, 1976. But the Home Depart- 
ment put up the case on August 7, 1976, and on the 
same day request for parole was rejected on the 
ground that the period of 13 days after the death of 
tha detenu's brother was over. 



19.119 Shri Moolraj Popatlal Lohana of Juna- 
gadh, applied for parole on October 5, 1976, for 
appearing in the SSC examination starting from 
October 10, 1976. The application was received 
in the State Secretariat, Central Receipt Section, on 
October 7, 1976; but it took 9 days for it to reach 
the dealing section of Home Department, where it is 
shown to have been received on October 16, 1976. 
On October 18, 1976, the Under Secretary rejected 
the request for parole on the ground that the date 
of examination had already passed. 



HARYANA 

19.120 According to the information supplied by 
the State Government to the Commission's Question- 
naire, the figures of arrests and detentions made in 
Haryana during the period of the Emergency are : 



MISA 

COFEPOSA 

DISIR 



200 

2 

1079 



The break-up of these detention figures, as reveal- 
ed from the statement obtained from the Ministry 
of Home Affairs, is as follows : — 

Members of banned organisations 24 

Members of political parties & others 172 

Economic offenders and anti-socials 4 

Total : 200 



It may thus be seen that an overwhelming majority 
of persons detained under MISA during this period 
in Haryana' belonged to various political parties. ';'■"';' 

19.12.1 Following the proclamation of the emer- 
gency by the President of India on June 25, 1975 
a wireless message No. 6216/HS/75 dated June 26^ 
1975, was received by the State Government from 
the Union Home Secretary, New Delhi, in which 
directions were given to the State Government to 
"enforce internal, security scheme with immediate 
effect and take steps to maintain law and order at 
all costs". 'The State Governments were also instruct- 
ed to "prevent any form of agitation likely to lead 
to violence"; and resort to preventive arrests to the 
extent necessary for this purpose. This message 
was repeated by the Home Department of the State 
Government to the Commissioners and DIsG 
Arnbala and Hissar, to all the District Magistrates 
and SSPs in Haryana for strict compliance. But 
even prior to receipt of these instructions, operations 
had been launched on the night of June- 25/26 
1975, itself by the State Government to detain a 
number of persons. Shri! S. K. Misra, Principal Sec- 
retary to the Chief Minister, Shri Bansi Lai, has 
stated before the Commission that between 12 to, 
'2 p.m. on June 25, 1975, he had received instruc- 
tion directly from Shri Barisi Lai, Chief Minister 
damping at Delhi) to ask Shri Banar Singh, AftlG 
CID, Haryana to draw up a list of persons "whose* 
activities could be considered prejudicial to the 



66- 



maintenanCe of law and order in the State". Ac- 
cordingly, Shri Banar Singh prepared a list of about 
70 persons and passed it on to Shri Misra, the same 
evening; On the same night (of June 25, 1975), 
a meeting was held at the residence of the Chief 
Minister, which was attended by Shri B. D. Gupta* 
the then Minister for Irrigation and Power ; Shri' 
S. D. Bhambri, Chief Secretary; Shri S. S Bajwa 
IGP and Shri S. K. Misra. In the meeting IGP 
reportedly received instruction from Shri Bansi Lai 
to note down a list of about 40 persons to be 
arrested before day-break and transmit those 
names immediately to DCs and SPs for further 
action. On the same night, IGP issued necessary 
telephonic direction to the District Magistrates and 
SPs, and the first place of detentions under MISA 
during the emergency in Haryana commenced. 
.19.122 Careful scrutiny of a number of MISA 
detentions files reveals that in many cases, '' the 
grounds of detentions were inadequate and vague and 
it seems that detention orders were presumably 
passed because of extraneous considerations, in 
some cases Deputy Commissioners and Superinten- 
dents of Police have clearly admitted that they 
received directions from ; above, either from the 
Chief Minister or from DIG, CID or IGP to 
effect arrests of particular ' persons and then prepare 
grounds to bring them under the mischief of the 
MISA provisions. It appears that in quite a few 
cases, the detaining authority i.e. the District 
Magistrate, perhaps acted on the satisfaction 
of somebody else while issuing the detention 
orders though under the MISA, the 
subjective satisfaction of the detainig authority is the 
first * and foremost requirement for issuing 
a detention order against a person. Some 
cases also giv e rise to the legitimate feeling that 
the district authorities were trying to take the easier 
course of action under MISA because they did not 
want to take the trouble of elaborate action requir- 
ed for launching criminal prosecution. MISA was 
blatantly misused in a number of. cases to settle 
old scores. . 

19.123 Under the provisions of section 16-A of 
the Maintenance of Internal Security Act which 
was added to the Principal Act by the Maintenance of 
the Internal Security Amendments Ordinance 1975 
statutory obligation was cast on the State Govern- 
ment to review and confirm within 15 days every 
case of detention under MISA. If the State Go- 
vernment was satisfied as to the necessity of the 
detentions, it had to issue a confirmatory order When 
the reports of detention are sent to the State Go- 
vernment for confirmation, the order of confirma- 
tion by the State Government should be a consi- 
dered order; and in cases where the State Govern- 
ment feels that the detention was not justified" the 
confirmation should be refused and the district 
authorities called upon to explain. It is seen that 
in some of the cases, MISA detention orders have 
been almost mechanically confirmed by the State 
Government without probing into the veracity or 
adequacy of the grounds of detentions. Only in 5 
caws, out of nearly 200, the orders passed by the 
District Magistrates were not confirmed by the State 
Government. From a scrutiny of a number of MHA 



files concerning MISA detention cases of Haryana, 
it is seen that that the Ministry of Home Affairs in 
quite a few cases asked for the comments of the 
Central Intelligence Bureau on the validity of the 
MISA detentions ordered by the State; Government 
In a number of cases, the Intelligence- Bureau have 
clearly pointed out that the grounds of. detention 
under MISA lack substance and motivated by per- 
sonal and political animosity. 

19.124 It is interesting to note that MISA deten- 
tions in Haryana prior to June 29, 1975, eventually 
necessitated promulgation of the 4th MISA Amend- 
ment Ordinance dated November 16, 1975. From 
the MHA file No. 1501 5/21 2/75-M ISA, it is seen 
that a legal complication arose with regard to the 
arrests effected by the Haryana Government before 
June 29, 1975, i.e. before the amended section 16-A 
of the MISA came into force. The thai Attorney 
General of India, Shri Niren De, sent a note to 
MHA in which he pointed out : 

'-. . "Officers under the Haryana Government 
originally made a large number of deten- 
tion orders on a date or dates prior to 
29th June, 1975, being the date on which 
the first MISA Ordinance came into effect. 
But these officers did not send the report 
to the State Government under section 
3(3) within the period mentioned in that 
sub-section, with the result that the deten- 
tion orders expired. After 29th June, 1975, 
the Haryana Government revoked the 
said detention orders and made fresh de- 
tention orders in respect of the persons - 
who were detained under the earlier deten- 
tion orders. I have been informed that the 
hearing of the High Court in respect of 
some of these matters are going on and 
the High Court has observed, quite correct- 
ly, that there can be no application of 
section 14(2) of the MISA, as it now 
stands, because there cannot be a revoca- 
tion of any detention order ' which had 
ceased to have any effect for non- 
compliance with section 3(3) of MISA 
because such detention orders had already 
expired before such purported revocation 
and the High Court has further observed 
that the fresh detention orders made by 
the Haryana Government after such 
revocation, and based on the old grounds 
cannot be sustained. I have also been 
informed that there is a large number of 
such fresh detention orders by the Haryana 
Government". ,"'..'* 

AtJZ' t25 ^° n *i e ba ? i? of the above opinion of the 
^ S?L Genera1 ' sub - Sf *tion 2 of section 14 of 
the MISA was amended and replaced by a new 
sub-section (2) vide 4th Amendment Ordinance 
issued on November 16, 1975 The neS 
sub-section -(2) of section 14 reads as foflowsV- 

"The expiry or revocation of a detention 
order (hereafter m this sub-section referred 



67 



to. as the. earlier detention or-der). shall not 
bar. the ; making , ol another detention order 
(hereafter in this subjection referred to 
as the subsequent detention order) under 
section 3 against the same person". 

19.126 The State Government has informed 
the Commission that a large number of MIS A 
detenus sent representations to the State Government 
from time to time alleging that their detentions were 
either 'mala fide' or 'acts of political vendetta 1 . A 
Committee, under the Chairmanship of the Chief 
Minister, .with Chief Secretary, Home Secretary, 
Legal Remembrancer, IGP, DIG, CID, and Deputy 
Director, SIB, was . constituted to consider the 
representations froni persons detained under M1SA. 
But this Committee, according to the State 
Government, actually existed in name. No 
complaints of the MISA detenus were considered 
by this Committee. 

l£.127 Parole : The State Government had no 
clearcut policy in the matter of granting parole 
to the MISA detenus. AH requests of MISA detenus 
or their relatives were considered at the Govern- 
ment level on the basis of material supplied by the 
Inspector General of Police and the orders for 
granting parole were always passed at the level of 
the Chief Minister. It has been reported that no 
■instructions or guidelines had been issued by the 
Government either to the Inspector General of 
Police or to the District Officers. In about 20 cases, 
parole was denied to the detenus simply because 
their applications were forwarded to the Delhi 
Administration from where no orders had been 
.received. Thus^4heJx...cases,,weat.unauended. ! ^e.cause. y 
of the.default on the part of the Delhi Administra- 
tion. Scrutiny of the statistics supplied by the 
Haryana Government on the parole cases revealed 
thai at. least in respect of 54 cases, the requests for 
parole were not granted. Out of these 54 cases^, as 
per. statements supplied by the State Governmeht, 
in 10 cases the concerned detenus requested' for 
release on parole due to the deaths of their family 
members, in 15 cases for marriages of the depen- 
dents and in 29 cases due to serious sickness of 
the family members., During the course of enquiry, 
it could also be seen that in some cases that the 
District Magistrates had to incur the wrath of the 
Chief Minister for reportedly showing a sympathetic 
attitude towards the detenus. Shri Lachman Singh, 
a MISA detenu, lodged in Ambala Jail, requested 
for parole to enable him to attend the marriage 
ceremony of his daughter which was to take place 
on August 23/24, 1975. The Superintendent, 
Central Jail. Ambala, forwarded his application to 
the then DC Ambala Shri K. K. Sharma on August 
19, 1975, bv post. Since the DC had no power 
to grant or refuse the request for release on parole, 
he forwarded the application in original to the 
State Government through a special messenger on 
the verv. same day. The .State Government, how- 
ever, did not convey any decision on this applica- 
tion. The Chief Minister Shri Bansi Lai, on the 
other hand, reoortcdly became annoved because of 
the interest taken by the DC in forwarding the 



application. In his statement, Shri K. K.. Sharma 
says, that— 

"On 19-11-1975, 1 happened to meet 
the Prinicipal Secretary to the CM. He 
told me that CM; was highly annoyed with 
me for forwarding Shri Lachhman Singh's 
parole application. According to him, the 
CM thought that 1 had shown over- 
zealousness in the matter and that per- 
haps I was politically involved. . . .A few 
days after this, 1 received from the Govt, 
a letter transferring me as Joint Secretary 
(Finance) with immediate effect. Around 
the same time, the Superintendent of 
Ambala Central Jail, who was neat 
retirement, was also placed under sus- 
pension. Soon after receiving the orders 
of transfer, I met the Chief Minister in 
Chandigarh. . .The CM replied that lie had 
since then made his verification in that 
regard and that he was satisfied. But he 
still held that T made an error of judg- 
ment in forwarding the parole application 
through a special messenger. What he 
clearly implied was that if the application 
had been sent by post, it would have bled 
a natural death and the CM would have 
been spared the embarrassment of having 
to detain the file in order to frustrate 
the request of the detenu". 



H1MACHAL PRADESH 

19.128 According to the information supplied 
by the State Government to the Commission, - 
The ' total" number ' of arrestraW detentions made 
in Himachal Pradesh during the period of Emer- 
gency are — - 



MISA 

COFEPOSA 

DISIR 



34 

NIL 

654 



19.129 Categorywise break-up of the MISA 
cases is given below : — 

(i) Members or Associates - of 

Baned Organisations 8 (All of RSS) 

(u) Members or Associates of 
Political Parties 17 

.(Hi) Others 9 

The third category includes 5 persons belongr 
ing to Lok Raj Parishad, 2 leaders of LagRu 
Jamidar Sabha, Kangra, 1 anti-social element and 

one economic offender. 

19 130 Among the political parties maximum 
number of detentions (6) were from amongst the 
followers of BJS. 

19 131 26 out of 34 persons were detained 
during the period between June 26, 1975 and 



June 30, 1975. These detentions were made in 
the wake of the proclamation of Emergency. A 
scrutiny has revealed that grounds of detention 
in all these cases referred to specific incidents 
signifying the opposition of the persons concerned 
to the imposition of Emergency and continuance 
of Smt. Gandhi in power despite the judgment of 
the Allahabad High Court setting aside her 
election to Parliament in 1971. Ten persons were 
detained during this period under the orders of 
Shri Ajay Prasad, the then District Magistrate, 
Simla. The State Government has reported in reply 
to the Commission's questionnaire that the District 
Magistrate had discussed the list of these persons 
with the Chief Minister on the evening of June 26, 
1975, and the latter had ordered their detention! 
After the amendment of MIS A, the State Govern- 
ment reviewed all the 26 detention orders issued 
till then in accordance with the new provisions of 
the Act and 11 of them were revoked as a result 
of this review. Two detention orders issued by the 
District Magistrate under the amended provisions 
Of MIS A were not confirmed by the State Govern- 
ment. Thus, in all 13 out of 34 orders of detention 
were either revoked or not confirmed by the State 
Government' leaving 21 persons who remained in 
detention beyond the initial period of 15 days. 

19.132 The State Government issued instructions 
vide their wireless message PS/CM/75-Misc (Home) 
dated July 5, 1975, to all the District Magistrates 
..to the effect that "no arrests under MISA shall 
be made wihout the prior approval of the Chief 
Secretary". These instructions issued presumably to : 
safeguard against the misuse of powers under MISA 
by the District authorities appear to have produced 
the desired effect. Only 6 persons were detained in 
Himachal Pradesh after the issue of these instruc- 
tions, 5 of them under the orders of the State 
Government and only one by a District Magistrate. 
No detention under MISA was ordered in Hima- 
chal Pradesh after December 18, 1975. 

19.133 The following cases are noteworthy : 

(i) Shri Romesh Kishore Bansal was detained 
under the orders of DM Sirmur issued 
on July 4, 1975, on the following 
grounds i> — 

"Shri Romesh Kishore Bansal is the 
Sangh Sanchalak of RSSS in Sirmur 
District. The Central Government 
banned the RSSS on 3rd July, 1975, 
along with certain other anti-social^ 
extremist parties in interest of Main- 
o e i?^ e of internaI Security. The said 
Shri Romesh Bansal is considered to 
be a security risk in view of his close 
connection with the banned organisa- 
tion and he was, therefore, ordered to 
be detained." 

Th£case was reviewed by the Govern men* on Julv o 

1975, and it was not found fit for confirmation The' 

order was, accordingly, revoked on Jiily 10. 1975. 

v(ii) Shri Kishore Lai of M/s. Kishori Lai Jagat 

J£am, Subzi Ma ndi; Simla, was detained 



under the orders of DM Simla dated July 
21, 1975* on the following grounds ;~- 

"1 that on the night of 19th July, 1 975, at 
about 8.3.0 p.m. Shri Kishori Lai along with 
his associates decided not to carry out the 
suggestions of the Government regarding 
reduction in prices of vegeta bles. He said that 
all controls must be lifted immediately on 
prices and they further said that they had beep 
trying to defeat these controls by Various 
measures since the imposition of the Emer- 
gency but had failed to achieve their objective 
directly. They decided that they would now 
instigate the growers to bring pressure on the 
Government to get these restrictions removed. 

2. In pursuance of this decision Shri Kishori 
Lai on the morning of 20th July, 197$. 
deliberately disobeyed the instructions and 
also incited the growers and dealers present 

to do the same. As a result, great inconve- 
nience to public was caused and supply of 
vegetables seriously- -affected. Shri Kishori 
Lai also met various growers and told them 
to bring pressure upon the Government to get 
these restrictions withdrawn. 

In the circumstances, he tried to create 
dis-affection among the various sections of 
society towards the Government established 
by law in India." 

The case was reviewed by the Government and the 
order was revoked on July 30, 1975. 

19.134 Eight detention orders were issued after 
the amendment of the Act. Each of these detention 
orders was required to be accompanied by a declara- 
tion issued simultaneously by the detaining authority 
to the effect that the detention of the person com 
cerned was necessary for dealing effectively with th<i 
Emergency. Five of these orders were issued by the' 
State Government and only three by the District 
Magistrates. While the orders i;sued by the State 
Government were accompanied by a declaration u/s 
I6A in each case, the orders issued hy (he District 
Magistrates were without the said declaration. The 
State Government reviewed all the three detentiens 
ordered by the District Magistrates within 'the 
statutory period of 15 days, revoked two of them and 
issued the declaration u/s 16A in respect of the third 
detention order, which was found fit for confirmations 
in the context of the Emergency. It can thus be seen 
that the requirements of the Act that the detention >' 
order under the amended MISA must be accomp^ 
nied by a declaration under section 16A issued simul- 
taneously by the detaining authority, was ntft Satis- 
fied in these cases. 

iu \ 9 Ho a Ttle S(4te G° veri «nent has reported that 
tne MISA cases were reviewed from time to time in 
accordance with the provisions of the Act, by a State 
evel CommUtee consisting of (he Chief Minister, 
the Chief Secretary, Secretary (Law), IGP, DIG, CID 
a ?1 L Joi J S t s ^ cr ftary (Home). It stands to the credit 
of the Government of HimachaJ Pradesh thai even 
( he first review required for the purpose of confir- 
mation of a detention order issued by a District 



69 



Magistrate used to be conducted by this Committee. 

1 It was as a result of the initial review, carried out 

by this Committee that as many as 13 orders were 

revoked within 15 days of the detention order. 

19. 136 Four-monthly reviews were conducted 
within the' statutory period and necessity of continued 
detention of the detenu concerned was considered 
in the light of the recommendations, of the detaining 
authority and-therDIG; CID. The Review Committee 
held six meetings during the period from July 9, 1975 
,to February 23, 1977. in" the review of MISA cases 
conducted on October 5, 1976, it was decided to 
revoke detention orders in respect of Shri Sant Ram 
Sant of Lok Raj Party and Shri Ramdas Dhiman 
and Shri Brij Mohan La la of RSS. A letter was 
written to. the Government of India on November 22, 
1976, for obtaining their approval for the revocation 
of these orders. The Government of India accorded 
approval for the release of Shri Sant Ram Sant and 
Shri .Ramdas Dhiman on December 3, 1976 and their 
detention orders were revoked on December 18, 1976. 
Approval for the release of Shri BM La la was 
received on December 24, 1976 and he was 'released 
on Ja unary 5, 1977. In the Review Committee meet- 
ing of February 23, 1977 the cases of all the detenus 
then under detention were examined to consider the 
necessity of their continued detention. S/Shri Nand 
Lai, Ramdas Thakur and Krishan Chand, all of RSS, 
were released on March 5, 1977, as a result of this 
■review. 

19.137 The representations received from or on 
behalf of the detenus for their release were considered 
by the State level Committee after getting reports 
from the District ISJTagistrate and the DIG, CID. 
Shri Tilak Raj S-rtarma; of Congress (O) and Shri 
Durga. Chand of BJS were released as a result of 
consideration of their reprcssntationr. Shri Tilak 

- Raj Sharma was detained on June 26, 1975 for his 
alleged participation in the anti-Emergency meeting 
held at the CTO, Simla on June 26, 1975. .He sent a 
petition on July 7, 1975 contending that he was not a 
member of any political party and had never indulged 
in any activities against the Government. He dec- 
lared his support to the 20 Point Programme of 
Smt. Indira Gandhi and requested for ;his release 
from detention. DIG, CID and DM Simla were 
asked to send their comments on the pet it ion of 
Shri Tilak Raj Sharma. District Magistrate, Simla, 
who had issued the detention order, wrote on July 
28, 1975 th.au "On inquiries made in appears that by 
and large what has been stated in his representation 
is true and in case the Government desires to review 
the orders, perhaps, there will not be any harm in 
it." DIG, CID sent his comments on August 1, 1975. 
While confirming that Shri Sharma was a Congress(O) 

. worker, who had actively participated in the opposi- 
tion rally of June 26, 1975, the DIG, CID mentioned 
that though Shri Sharma was seen on a number of 
times participating in BJS meetings and rallies, his 
background did not indicate that he was_a whole- 
time or dedicated worker of this organisation^ The 
case was reviewed in the Home Department in the, 
light of the reports from DM, Simla and DIG,' CID 
and the detention order was revoked on August 20, 
975. Another detenu Shri Durga Chand of BJS 

S/25 HA/78— 10 



detained on May 26, 1975, sent a petition on Decem- 
ber 31, 1975, saying that he was suffering from piles 
and assured the Government that he 'would not 
indulge in any prejudicial activities in future. DIG, 
CID made the following recommendations : — 

"Shri Durga Chand, MLA, according to secret 
information received, hab been evincing 
softness in his attitude. It is, therefore, 

recommended that the Government may con- 
sider his release." 

Shri Durga Chand v/as released on April 21, 1976, 
after obtaining the approval from the Government of 
India. 

19.138 Of 21 MISA detenus, whose detention 
beyond 15 days was confirmed by the State Govern- 
ment, two were'released on the basis of their represen- 
tations, six were released on the basis of four monthly 
reviews and 10 were released in January 1977 under 
the directions of the Central Government.. One 
detenu named Shri Vidya Sagar Joshi had died while 
in detention in August 1976 and, as such, there were 
only two persons under detention on March 21, 
1977, when the Emergency was lifted and their orders 
were revoked. 

19.139 Parole .: Scrutiny of parole cases has 
revealed that the State Government had followed a 
liberal policy regarding the temporary release of MISA 
detenus on health grounds or to enable them to fulfil 
their genuine social and family obligations. Of the 21 
detenus, who remained under detention beyond 15 
days, 18 were granted parole on more than one 
occasion, some of them on as many as 5 times. Even 
ihe detenus belonging to the RSS were granted parole 
liberally whenever their requests were found to be " 
genuine. Applications for grant of parole were pro- 
cessed in the Home Department in the light of the 
recommendations of the DM concerned and the DIG, 
CTD and parole was refined very rarely. This will 
become clear from the following examples;: — 

(i) Shri Narottam Dutta Shastri of Lok Raj Party 
detained on June 27, 1975, was granted 
parole from August 8, 1976 to August 18, 
... ,.,... 1976, and- from September— K: 1976 to. Sep- 
tember 10, 1976 to enable him to look after 
his ailing brother-in-law. He was again 
released on parole for one month in January 
1977 to make arrangements for the marriage 
of his daughter. 

(ii) Shri Raj end er Kumar Handa of Chhatra 
Sangharsh Samiti was released from April 14, 
1976 to April 18, 1 976 to enable him to attend 
his sister's wedding. He was released on 
parole again in October 1976, December 
1976 and January 1977 on medical grounds. 

(iii) Shri Ramdas Dhiman of RSS, detained on 
October 18, 1975, was granted parole 8 times 
on the ground of illness of his son. TotaJ 
duration of parole was over 5 months in this 

case. 

(iv) Shri Shanta Kumar of BJS detained t on 
June 27, 1975 was granted parole three times 



70 



, first on the ground of illness of his son and 
later to enable him to look after his business 
problems. He was also allowed to visit 
Amntsaiy Jullundur, Delhi and Ambala 
during the period of parole in connection 
with business affairs. 

19.140 The following parole cases are found 
noteworthy : — 

(i) Shri Daulat Ram Sankhyan, a Congress (O) 
leader, was detained on June 26, 1975 He 
applied on October 18, 1975 for grant of 
paroie to enable him to attend the fourth death 
anniversary of his son. The matter was 
referred to the Central Government for advice 
on October 23, 1975. The MHA sent a 
signal on October 28, 1975 advising the State 
Government that "the detenu may not be 
released on parole but may be tsken out in 
custody and permitted to attend ceremonies 
on November 2 and 3, 1975 and brought back 
to jail on completion of ceremonies". The 
action was taken accordingly. However, 
Shri Daulat Ram was released on parole on 
medical grounds from August 28, 1976 to 
September 27, 1976 by the State Govern- 
ment. 

(ii) Shri Narayan, an alleged RSS worker 
was detained on October 15, 1975. A repre- 
sentation was received from his nephew on 
January 17, 1977 requesting for the release of 
Shri Narayan Swami on parole. Since no 
request for parole had ever been received 
from Shri Narayan Sw?mi till then, he was 
contacted to find out whether he was willing 
to be released on parole. It is seen from the 
file that he refused to go on parole. However, 
V? Tn S granted 15 da y s P a roIe on February 
16, 1977 and it was extended until the order 
was revoked on March 21, 1977. 

(iii) Shri Durga Singh Rathore of Congress (O) 
was detained on June 26, 1975. He requested 
for grant of parole on February 9, 1076 on 
medical; grounds.; File shows 'that he was 
suffering from pain in stomach and urinary 
bleeding since July, 1975. The report of the 
District Magistrate Nahan dated February 25 
1976 confirmed the detenu's illness which was 
also certified by the Medical Officer. How- 
ever, Shri Rathore was not released on parole 
but was instead got admitted to the State 
Hospital Snowdon, Simla, for treatment 
in March 1 976. He sent another petition on 
May 23, 1976. requesting for grant of parole 
on the ground that the allopathic treatment 
did not suit him and he wanted to be treated 
by an Ayurvedic or Homoeopathic doctor. 
This was followed by series of applications 
?oV May ,, 2 T 5 V 1976 ' Jime 7 ' 1976, June 14, 

lulv 27 lQ7 U i y t? 7j 19 7 6 ' , HfS a PP lic ^« of 
July 27, 1976 shows ihat he was then suffer- 
ing from tuberculosis in Kidneys with various 
other complications. District Magistrate 
SimUand DIG CID were asked on August 
. 4, 1976 to send their comments. Shri Durga 



Singh Rathore sent another petition on 
August 17, 1976 requesting the authorities to 
keep him under house arrest if he could not 
be granted parole. File shows a report dated 
August 8, 1976 from the Director-Principal 
Himachal Pradesh Medical College, Simla' 
saying that Shri Rathore was undergoing 
antitubercular therapy. DIG, CID wrote to 
the Home Department on August 25, 1976 
saying that the detenu's treatment was conti- 
nuing and parole was not recommended in 
view of no change of his anti-Government pos- 
tures. However, ihe Government issued orders 
for releasing Shri Rathore for one month 
with effect from August 28, 1976. It is seen 
from the file that he refused to avail of parole 
as he was then undergoing treatment in the 
Snowdon Hospital, Simla. He was granted 
parole for one month from December 14, 
1976, also but did not avail of the same. 



KARNATAKA 

19.141 According to the information suplied 
by the State Government in replies to the Commi- 
ssions questionnaire, the figures of arrests and 
detentions in Karnataka during the period of emer 
gency are : ' 



MISA 

COFEPOSA 
DISIR . 



487 
119 

4015 



nrri? Scrutiny has, however, revealed that' 

MISA warrants in respect of 10 persons could not b« 

exe f U t ?j£ , l d « such onIy 477 P ers ons were detained 
under MISA. Categorywise break-up of these persons 
is given below : * 



(i) Members or 165 
Associates of 
Banned Organi- 
sations 

(ii) Members or 156 
Associates of 
Political Parties 

(iii) Others 156 



RSS 129, JEI 
Anand Marg 
CPIML 7. 



20, 



Congress (O) 15 
BJS 124, BLD 1, 
Socialist Party 8 
CPM 1, Others 7.' 



The third category includes economic offenders 
smugglers, rowdies, gamblers and other anti-social- 
elements. 

t>oo I9,1 1? Jl T OU J d be seen from the above *at the 
RSS and BJS had to bear the brunt of MISA in 
Karnataka during the emergency. There were 8 
journalists, 4 teachers, 19 students, 18 trade union 
leaders and 3 women among the detenus. Three 
Government servants and 15 employees of the corpo- 
rate bodies/Public Sector Undertakings were also 
detained under MISA for their alleged association with 
the banned organisations or participation in anti- 
emergency activities. 



'\ " >»l»»SlKmmi*,i 



■fr—r^TjTftimiTTini 



71 



19.144 It has been reported by the State Govern- 
ment that the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh had 
called on Chief Minister of Karnataka in Bangalore 
on the afternoon of June 25, 1975 and informed him 
that the emergency was being declared. The general 
policy decisions and instructions regarding the arrests 
and detentions of Opposition elements were received 
from the Government of India on June 26, 1975. 
Actual detentions under MISA in Karnataka started 
from July 4, 1975 with the Government of India 
banning certain political parties and organisations. 
Till then only 4 persons had been detained under 
MISA in Karnataka. It has been reported by the 
, State Government that S/Shri Atal Behari Vajpayee, 
Madhu Dandavate, L.K. Advani and S.N. Mishra were 
detained at Bangalore on June 26, 1975. The iile 
of the Home Department shows that at about 7.30 a.m. 
on June 26, 1975, the Chief Secretary, Delhi, tele- 
phoned to the Chief Secretary, Karnataka and 
requested that S/Shri L.K. Advani, A.B. Vajpayee, 
S.N. Mishra, Madhu Dandavate, Samar Guha and 
Subramanyam Swamy, who were then in Bangalore, be 
arrested. The Chief Secretary, Delhi, had mentioned 
that this had the concurrence of the Prime Minister. 
This was also confirmed by, the Union Home Secretary 
when the Chief Secretary, Karnataka, contacted him 
on telephone on the morning of June 26, 1975. In 
pursuance of these instructions, S/Shri L.K. Advani, 
A.B. Vajpayee, S.N. Mishra and Madhu Dandavate 
were detained under MISA on June 26, 1975 under the 
orders ofShriM.L. Chandrasekhar, the then Commis- 
sioner of Police, Bangalore City. Shri MX. Chandra- 
sekhar has stated before the Commission that the 
grounds for the detention of these parsons were 
collected from Delhi after the execution of detention 
orders. 

19.145 Some examples of detentions made in 
Karnataka during the period of the emergency are 
given below ': 

(i) S/Shri Addanda C. Kashi, C.P. Annaiah, 
C.K. Poovappa and C.P. Kushalappa were 
detained under the orders dated August 
21, 1975 of the District Magistrate, Coorg. 
Their detentions were based on a report 
submitted to the" District Magistrate by 
the Circle Inspector of Police, Virajpet Circle, 
on August 21, 1975. It was mentioned in this 
report that these persons were active members 

1 of the Bharatiya Jan Sangh and were close 
associates of ShriA.K. Subbaiah, Advocate 
and MLC, who was then under detention in 
the Central Jail, Bellary. It was alleged 
that these persons were creating law. and order 
problems in Virajpet Taluk, condemning the 
administration in general and Police Depart- 
ment in particular and were trying to create 
enmity between Hindus and Muslims with 
the support of the student population. It 
was also mentioned that these persons were 
taking part in secret meetings and distributing 
objectionable pamphlets against the Govern- 
ment. Only one case under sections 143, 
147, 148, 323, 353 and 332 IPC involving 
Shri Addanda C. Kashi, was specifically 
mentioned in the entire report. When the 



case was reviewed in the Home Department 
the Home Secretary recorded on August 28, 
1975, that : 

"There is not much evidence to show that 
the four persons detained by the District 
Magistrate, Coorg, are active members 
of the RSS." 

The DIG (Intelligence) was consulted and 
he confirmed on September 1, 1975, that these 
persons did not appear to be active and 
no dossiers were kept on them in the State 
Special Branch. However, detention orders 
in respect of these 4 persons were confirmed 
on September 4, 1975. The file shows that the 
District Magistrate, Coorg had recommended 
on October 16, 1975, the revocation of deten- 
tion orders on the ground that further deten- 
tion of these persons was no longer necessary. 
The Home Secretary recorded on November 
1, 1975, that : 

"A perusal of the records shows that 
even at the time of passing orders 
for their detention, the grounds were 
not adequate to justify their detention. 
' It has been reported that Shri Addanda 
C. Kashi is an active member of the 
Bharatiya Jan Sangh and that he has been 
taking active interest in RSS activities. 
There is no evidence to show that Shri 
Kashi is a member of any banned organi- 
sation. The other three persons viz. 
S/Shri C. P. Annaiah, C. K._ Poovappa and 
C. P. Kushalappa, are active members of 
the Bharatiya Jan Sangh. It is not clear 
from the report dated 22nd August, 1975 
whether these three persons are members 
of any banned organisation. Nowhere 
has it been stated that these persons are 
members of any banned organisation and 
they are only supporters and sympathisers 
of the RSS.» No evidence has been led in 
about the membership of any banned 
organisation of these persons. Further, 
it is stated by the Circle Inspector that 
they were distributing pamphlets, exhibi- 
ting posters, etc. in conspicuous places 
in Virajpet Taluk. These pamphlets 
and posters are said to be anti-Govern- 
ment. However, the Police Inspector has 
not furnished specimen copies of the 
pamphlets and posters. It would appear 
that these are cases where Government 
could exercise their discretion and revoke 
the detention orders. 

The State Government decided to revoke the 
detention orders and the Government of 
India was requested on December 8, 1975 
to accord approval for the same. The 
Government of India replied on January 
20, 1976, advising the State Government 
to review these cases once again from the 
point of view of the likely effect of release 
of these persons on the agitation launched 
by the Lok Sangharsh Samiti which, accord- 
ing to the Government of India, was fairly 



72 



active m the State of Karnataka. The State 
Government wrote to the Government of 
India on August 10, 1976 that the release of 
these persona was not likely to affect the 
maintenance of public order. They were 
released on October 6, 1976 after the Govern- 
ment of India gave the clearance. 

(ii) Shri N. K. Ganapaiah, the lone BLD detenu 
of Karnataka, was detained under the orders 
of the District Magistrate, Hassan, issued 
on July 8, 1975. It was alleged in the grounds 
of detention that Shri Ganapaiah had cir- 
culated letters criticising the emergency and 
the measures taken by the Government to 
enforce it. He filed a Writ Petition in the 
High Court of Karnataka challenging his 
detention. The file shows that the Govern- 
ment was advised by the Advocate-General 
to revoke the detention order on the ground 
that the declaration issued by the District 
Magistrate, Hassan, was confirmed by the 
Chief Secretary and not by the Minister 
concerned. The Home Secretary recorded 
on October 10, 1975 that there was no dele- 
gation permitting the Chief Secretary to 
confirm the detention and that-— 

"It would be embarrassing for the Chief 
Secretary to file the affidavit that the 
detentions were confirmed by the Minister 
uncharge after applying his mind." 

The order was, therefore, revoked on October 
18, 1975, and fresh order was passed the same 
day. The file shows that the case was reviewed 
in September 1976 and the Additional Home 
Secretary recorded On September 6, 1976 
that : 

"Shri N. K. Ganapaiah, Convenor of 
Bharatiya Lok Dal in our State is under 
detention from July 1975. He is 72 
years old and his wife has submitted a 
petition to the Government requesting 
for his parole, as she is ailing from 
kidney trouble. The Bharatiya Lok Dal 
was not a force to be reckoned with, at 
any time; the detenu was detained only 
for writing slogans in pamphlets which 
he distributed by post. Even if be is 
released, he will find it difficult to orga- 
nise prejudicial activities. Even if he 
does so, provisions of MISA and DISIR 
can be used against him. We may con- 
sider his release." 

The detention order was revoked on October 
30, 1976, after obtaining the approval from 
the Government of India. 

(iii) Shrike. R. Shivananda, former President, Town 
Municipality, Chikmaglur, was detained 
under the orders of Shri R. Shankarappa, 
D.M. Chickmaglur, issued on March 3 1976 
on account of his alleged RSS/BJS leanings! 
It was alleged that he was not cooperating 



m the implementation of the various Govern* 
■ ment programmes, particularly, in the distri- 
bution of sites to the landless. It was men- 
tioned that he was holding in camera meet- 
ings to instigate the students against the 
Government, engineering printing of objec- 
tionable and prejudicial literature condemn- 
ing the Prime Minister of the country and the 
Chief Minister of Karnataka, using derogatory 
words and was promoting hatred between 
different communities and classes. However 
enquiries made by the Commission with the 
special State Branch have revealed that no 
individual file was being maintained by them 
on Shri Shivananda. Record shows that the 
detention was ordered without any report 
from the police. The detention order was 
confirmed by the State Government on March 
16, 1976. Smt. Kanakamma wife of Shri 
Shivananda presented a petition to the Chief 
Minister of Karnataka on June 4 1976 
Shri V.K. Gorey, who had succeeded Shri 
R. Shankarappa, as D.M. Chickmaglur, was 
asked to examine the petition and send report 
to the Government, The Superintendent of 
Police was asked by the D.M. to offer his 
comments on the petition. The Superinten- 
??,n < £ P ? llCC ' Chlckl ^aglur, wrote on June 
16, 1976, that no anti-emergency activities on 
the part of Shri Shivananda had been noticed 
and there was nothing adverse against him in 
the police records except that he was a 
Congress (O) leader. Shri V. K. Gorey wrote 
to the Home Department on June 26, 1976 
mentioning that as per the note left by his 
predecessor, Shri Shivananda was detained 
because "as President of the Municipality 
he was misbehaving with the authorities and 
was not giving heed to the administrative 
directions to carry out certain works " This 
note of the earlier D.M. Shri R. Shankarappa 
did not mention that Shri Shivananda was 
an active member of the banned organisa- 
tion, Shri-Gorey- further wrote that Shri 
Shivananda was a Congress (O) worker who 
was no longer in power. In view of the fact 
mat his detention was ordered without any 
report from the police and the Superintendent- 
of Police, Chickmaglur, had reported that 
bnn Shivananda was not noticed for anv 
anti-emergency activities, Shri Gorey re- 
commended to the Home Department to 
revoke the detention order of Shri Shivananda 
agreed to give an undertaking that he would' 
resign the membership of the Municipality 
and not enter into politics for a period of 
rive years. The detention order was revoked 
on January 5, 1977, after obtaining the ap-' 
proval of the Government of India. In res- 
ponse to a notice under section 8B of the. 
Commissions of Inquiry Act and a summons 
under section 5(2)(a) of the Commissions 
of Inquiry Rules, Shri R. Shankarappa stated 
before the Commission that though he had 
issued the detention order without any report 
from the police, it was based on sufficient 
grounds ascertained by him through his own 



■-r^^^>^riTje*?^>3assp^'^^?i>^assft^;i^! 






73 



sources. This case has been Referred by the 
Commission to the Karnataka State Authority 
for detailed examination. 

(iv) Shri Rama Jois, formerly an Advocate, Vice- 
President of Bangalore City Unit of BJS and 
now a Judge in the High Court of Karnataka, 
was detained under the orders of Shri M. L. 
■ Chandrasekhar, Commissioner of Police, 
Bangalore, issued on December 20, 1975. He 
remained under detention till January 20, 

1977. The grounds of detention made vague 
references to his RSS background and 
support to the J. P. movement without men- 
tioning any specific activities in this regard. 
He was alleged to have addressed some 
election meetings organised by the BJS during 
the period from February 1972 to October 
1974. It was mentioned in the grounds of 
detention that' Shri Rama Jois was in the 
habit of helping aggrieved Government ser- 
vants and detenus through writ petitions 
and appeals and had played an important 
role in the defence of S/Shri Atal Bihari 
Vajpayee, Madhu Dandvate, L. K. Advani and 
S. N. Mishra, who had filed writ petitions in 
the High Court of Karnataka challenging 
their detentions. The report received from 
the DIG (Intelligence) by the Commission 
does not contain any information suggestive 
of the allegation that Shri Rama Jois was 
associated with the RSS. This case was heard 
by the Commission at Bangalore in May, 

1978. Shri M. L. Chandrasekhar, former 
Commissioner of Police, Bangalore, stated 
that the detention order was issued in good 

. faith and on sufficient grounds for the purpose 
of preventing Shri Rama Jois from acting in 
a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of 
public order. Shri Chandrasekhar could not 
explain as to how the legitimate professional 
activities of Shri Rama Jois could be con- 
strued to mean a threat to the public order; 
but he persisted in justifying his action. 
A notice under section 8B of the Commis- 
sions of Inquiry Act, and a summons under 
rule 5(2) (a) of the Commissions of Inquiry 
Rules were, therefore, issued to Shri M. L. 
Chandrasekhar. He responded to the 
summons and stated that he had issued the 
detention order in respect of Shri Rama Jois 
in good faith considering his professional 
activities to be political and added that "My 
explanation is that it is an error of judgment". 
The Commission, therefore, decided not to 
pursue the matter further. 

(v) Shri V. H. Master alias Veerappa was detained 
on August 1, 1975 under the orders of the 
District Magistrate, Raichur. The grounds 
of detention indicate active involvement of 
Shri Master in Labour activities. It was 
alleged that he was an activist of CPIML 
which. was a banned party. The order was 
confirmed by the State Government and the 
continued detention was also confirmed in 

. . . the first,- second, third and fourth, four- 
monthly reviews. At the time of the next 



four-monthly review, the Additional Home 
Secretary reviewed the case with DIG (Intel- 
ligence) and CIO of the IB, MHA, Govern- 
ment of India and recorded on January 28, 
1977, that-- 

"He is not a member of the banned orga- 
nisation. Some years ago, he had some 
contacts withjCPIML, that is all. He is 
only a labour leader with leanings 
towards CPIML ideology. I think 
that the State Government can take a 
decision to release him." 

i 

Shri V. H. Master was released on January 

31, 1977. 

(vi) Shri Jaipal son of Shri Samual was detained 
under the orders of Shri R. Shankarappa, DM, 
Chickmaglur, issued on February 5, 1976, on 
the ground that he had been creating a lot 
of trouble in the villages and threatening 
the planters that he would set fire to the 
Coffee Estate if he was not supported. . He 
was also alleged to be preventing the 
Tehsildar and Block Development Officers 
in the distribution of free sites to the landless 
persons. The Superintendent of Police, 
Chickmaglur, wrote to the DIG of Police 
(Intelligence and Railways), Bangalore, on 
February 12, 1976, that the District Magis- 
trate, Chickmaglur, had issued the detention 
order in respect of Shri Jaipal without calling 
for any report from the police but acting on 
recommendation of the BDO and Tehsildar, 
The detention order was confirmed oh Feb- 
ruary 17, 1976, by the State Government. 
The case was reviewed in March 1976 and the 
Home Secretary recorded on March 5, 1976, 
that : 

"The reason which weighed with the D.C. 
to detain Shri Jaipal is that he inter- 
fered with the allotment of sites to 
weaker sections in the village. It is 
not clear how an individual could 
seriously hamper" distribution of sites. 
The D. C. has not stated that Shri Jaipal 
is a member of any banned organisation 
or that he has the political support of 
any organisation. There is also no police 
report against Shri Jaipal. In fact, the 
D. C. has said that the police have 
not taken any action nor has he received 
any report from the police. It is not 
desirable to invoke provisions of MISA 
for dealing with individuals who may 
attempt to work against government 
programmes when such individuals are 
not backed by any organisations. Such 
individual cases of violation of laws 
could be dealt with under normal laws. 
We may, therefore, revoke the orders of 
detention under MISA issued by the 
B.C. and release Shri Jaipal." 

The detention. order was revoked on March 
23, 1976. This case was heard by the Commis- 
sion in May 1978 and a notice under 



74 



section 8B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act 
and a summons under rule 5(2) (a) of the Com- 
missions of Inquiry Rules were issued to Shri 
R. Shankarappa, former D.M., Chickmaglur. 
Shri R. Shankarappa, responded to the 
summons and in his statement referred to a 
civil suit connected with this case, still pending 
before the Court. The Commission, there- 
fore, ruled that the case would be kept pend- 
ing and heard by the State Authority for 
detailed examination. 

(vii) The District Magistrate, Tumkur, issued on 
July 21, 1975, detention orders in respect 
of 11 industrialists on the ground that they 
were indulging in irregularities and diverting 
the raw materials issued to them for manu- 
facturing of certain items which they were not 
manufacturing. Only 7 ofthem could actually 
be detained. The file shows that these deten- 
tions were ordered on the recommendations 
of the Joint Director, Small Scale Industries, 
who addressed a letter to the District Magis- 
trate, Tumkur, on July 19, 1975, in this connec- 
tion. When the case was reviewed in the 
Home Department, the Home Secretary 
recorded on August 1, 1975, that : 

"I have gone through these papers care- 
fully. _ The evidence furnished in every 
case is grossly inadequate to give any 
decision whether these persons have mis- 
used the scarce raw materials." 

The Home Secretary pointed out that the 
necessary details justifying the detention 
were still awaited from the Joint Director 
of Small Industries. It was, therefore, 
decided to confirm the declaration and review 
the case af er the receipt of these particulars. 
The detention order was confirmed on August 
2, 1975. The case was reviewed again after 
the receipt of the required information from 
the office of the Joint Director of Small Scale 
Industries. It was observed that there was 
no material to prove the charge of misuse of 
scarce raw materials and that "at the most the 
proprietors of these small scale industries 
were unequipped or ill-equipped for the 
manufacture of products for which the 
imported raw material was issued". It was 
pointed out that "it was not a ground to 
come to any conclusion that these imported 
raw materials have been sold in the open 
market at the blackmarket rates. The fact 
that the raw materials are being misused 
is no ground to detain a person under MISA." 
The, orders in respect of these persons were 
revoked on September 3, 1975. 

19.146 AU the detentions under MISA made in 
Kamataka during the period of the emergency were 
ordered by. invoking section 16A of the Act. As 
such, none of the detenus was informed of the grounds 
of his detention. Detention orders issued by the 
District Magistrate with the declaration under 
section 16A were required to be confirmed by the 
State Government within 15 days. The detaining 



authorities used to send to the Home Department 
copies of the detention order, declaration under 
section 16A and the grounds of detention. These 
were examined in the Home Department and put up 
to the Chief Minister for obtaining his orders of 
confirmation of the detention orders. Files reveal 
that in several cases the confirmation orders were 
issued in anticipation of approval of the Chicr 
Minister when his orders could not be obtained within 
the stipulated period of 15 days, it has been stated 
by the State Government in reply to the Commission's 
questionnaire that such cases were sent to the Chief 
Minister for obtaining his rectification of the decision 
taken by the Home Department. Scrutiny has also 
revealed that orders in re'spect of persons of pro- 
nounced political character were confirmed in a rou- 
tine manner without any detailed examination of their 
cases. All other orders whether in respect of persons 
detained for their a nti- Government, anti-emergency 
activities or for their anti-social behaviour were 
scrutinised thoroughly in the Home Department. R 
has been intimated by the State Government that 
in 24 cases the orders issued by the District Magistrates 
were not confirmed. Following illustrations will 
reveal the nature and extent of the scrutiny of MlfiA 
cases carried out in the Home Department. 

(i) S/Shri K. A. Venkataramaiah, Garuda Sharma 
and S. S. Sharma were detained under the 
orders of the Commissioner of Police, 
Bangalore City, issued on July 30, 1976. 
Shri Venkataramaiah, aged 74, was alleged 
to have contacts with KPCC(O), LSS, BJS, 
RSS and Sarvodaya organisations and it was 
mentioned that — 

"Recently, he toured in the State in- 
cognito criticising the Government and 
making anti-emergency utterances." 

Similar grounds were given for, the detention 
of the other two detenus. The cases were 
, examined in the Home Department. Shri 
. K. C. K. Raja, Additional Home Secretary, 
recorded on August 4> 1976, on the file of 
Shri Venkataramaiah that — 

"It is enough if at the appropriate time 
we invoke the provisions of Rule 31(a) 
DISIR to restrict his movements." 

The recommendation was accepted and the 
order was not confirmed. Orders in respect 
of the other two detenus were also allowed to 
lapse. 

(ii) Shri A. Gundanna son of Shri K. Ananda Rao 
was detained under the orders issued on 
April 5, 1976, by the District Magistrate,/ 
Mandya. It was mentioned in the grounds 
of detention that ever since the promulgation 
of the emergency Shri Gundanna has been 
publishing materials in his paper 'Pooravani' 
without regard to censorship and making 
unfounded allegations against the Govern- 
ment, The immediate provocation appears to 
be a publication in his paper of the statements 
made "by Shri K. Chikkalingaiah, MP and 
Shri C. Made Gowda, MLA, criticising the 



K,rafflSffljnHZ£is£EiSJSE2?i®H 



75 



decision of the Government to carry the water 
of Krishna rejasagar Dam to Mysore District 
by 'constructing, .varuna -channel. Shri B. 
Purushotham, Deputy Secretary, Special, 
recorded on April 15, 1976, that— 

"It is difficult to bring the grounds of 
detention under section 3(l)(a)(ii) of the 
MISA." ' 

and that — 

"Taking an overall view of the srounds 
furnished by the D.M, Mandya,~it does 
not appear to be a fit case for ordering 
detention of & person and much less can 
the declaration ■ issued by . the D.M. 
Mandya be confirmed. " 

The Home Secretary recorded on April 15, 
1976, that— 

"The proper course could have been to 
take action against Shri Gundanna 
under the Prevention of Publications 
of Objectionable Matters Act, 1976 or 
to take action against him for having 
published articles without subjecting 
them to censorship." 

The District Magistrate, Mandya, was 
informed on April 19, 1976, that the detention 
ordered by him was not confirmed by the 
State Government. Shri Gundanna was 
released on April 24, 1976. 

19,147 Scrutiny has revealed that in addition 
to the 24 cases where orders issued by the DMs 
were not confirmed and the detenus concerned were 
released within 15 days, the review carried out in the 
Home Department resulted in the release of many 
more detenus within a short time after the detention. 
It is seen that the orders in such cases were confirmed 
in the first instance either to uphold the authority of 
the District Magistrate (as was mentioned specifically 
by the Home Secretary on March 5, 1976 in the case 
of detention of one Shri Jayapal of District Chickma- 
galur) or with the intention of taking up the case for 
review very soon after collecting more details from the 
detaining authority. It is seen that the first four- 
monthly review in such cases was taken up within a 
short time after the orders were confirmed. Scrutiny 
has also revealed that special reviews were made by 
the -Additional Secretary in consultation with the DIG 
(Intelligence) and District authorities, whenever repre- 
sentations received from or on behalf of the detenus 
demanded this and a fairly good number of persons 
were released as a result of consideration of their 
cases in such reviews. 



19.148 The four-monthly reviews of MISA cases 
were carried out in the Home Department. No formal 
committee was appointed for conducting such reviews. 
it has, however, been stated in reply to the Commis- 
sion's questionnaire that 'as and when considered 
necessary, the "Deputy Inspector General of Police 
(Intelligence), Central Intelligence Officer and the 
detaining authority, were also associated with these 



reviews'. The following illustrations may be found 
noteworthy in this connection : 

(i) Shri K. D. Appachu and his son Shri K. A. 
Kariappa were detained under the orders 
of the DM, Coorg, issued on August 2, 1976. 
It was alleged in the grounds of detention 
that Shri Appachu had in collusion with the 
Revenue Department officials managed to 
secure 10 acres of Government paisari land 
in Anthurnallu village even though he had 
sufficient lands and was an economic holder. 
The order was confirmed by the State 
•Government on August 16, 1976. Smt. 
Chinni Appachu wife of Shri K. D. Appachu 
sent a petition on August 7, 1976, alleging 
that her husband and son were detained as a 
result of a land dispute and their detention 
was unwarranted. The case was examined 
in the Home Department in detail and the 
Home Secretary recorded on September 16, 
1976, that— 

"By no stretch of imagination can it be 
said that he has acted prejudicially to 
the security of the State and public 

order." 

The order was revoked on September 29, 
1976, on the recommendations of the Home 
Secretary. 

(ii) Shri Y. S. Sidde Gowda was detained under 
the orders dated May 19, 1976, of the District 
Magistrate, Mysore, allegedly for harassing 
some Harijans, The order was confirmed on 
June 1, 1976, by the State Government. 
In a review of MISA cases, made by the 
Additional Home Secretary with the DIG 
(Intelligence) on July 22, 1976, it was decided 
to check whether there was any case pending 
against Shri Sidde Gowda under the normal 
law. Shri Sidde JGowda sent a. petition on 
September 10, 1976, alleging that he was de- 
tained because of some complaint lodged by 
persons mimical to him. On October 13, 
1976, the District Magistrate, was asked to 
send his recommendations! about the conti- 
nuance or otherwise of his detention. No 
reply was received from the District Magis- 
trate but the order was reviewed in the Home 
Department and the detention order was 
revoked on November 9, 1976, on the basis 
of following note recorded by the Additional 
Home Secretary on November 4, 1976 : 

"Enquiry shows that no case is pending 
against him in this connection; normal 
laws are adequate for dealing with the 
persons of this type-and detention under 
MISA is' not justified." 

(iii) Shri Maniapanda Nanjappa son of Shri , 
Ganpathi of BJS was detained under MISA 
under the orders of the District Magistrate, 
Coorg, dated August 3, "1976. His detention 
was confirmed by the State Government on 
August 16, 1976. He was released on parole 



76 



on August 13, 1976. He sent a petition to 
me Chief Minister on October 20 1976 
requesting for extension of parole and 
stating that he had resigned from the member- 
ship of the Jan Sangh Party and also desired 
to retire from politics. The Chief Minister 
endorsed that 'the parole may be extended 
by another 15 days. In the meantime, 
examine the request made by him for his 
release in view of the fact that he has resigned 
from the Jan Sangh'. He sent another peti- 
'KS t0 the Chief Minister in November 
1976, saying that he had resigned from the 
^J^ and had sent the resignation letter to 
the Secretary, Jan Sangh Party, Coorg. The 
Chief Minister sent the petition to the Home 
Secretary with the following endorsement, 
dated November 28, 1976. 

"I have already spoken to you over the 
phone. The resignation letter of the 
applicant from Jan Sangh is attached to 
this petition. This case may be reviewed 
and put up." 

Detention order was revoked on January 10, 
iy77, after obtaining the approval from the 

SdI?T e ^nl/ n 1- ia ^ - ir £ ikr3y ' detenti0 " 
order m icspect of Shn Putte Gowda of 

^ yS i°Q r 5c DlStnct ' detai ned on November 
h\ 7 5 > - was rev °ked after he wrote that 
of the Ss gnCd fr ° m th£ pHmary me "ibership 

19.149 It has been intimated by the State Govern 
merit that it had recommended to the GOI revocation 
or detention orders in 39 cases. The Government of 
India accepted the recommendation in 20 case 

thTs^i VT 65 ' S6nt + n ° repIy ^ 6 «**» a »d directed 
the State Government to review the remaining two 

1977 tSmS -° ^ Su|ddineS issued in J ™Zy 
1977. The following cases may be found noteworthy : 

(i) ShriM.D. Some Gowda of Congress (Q) 
Municipal Councillor, Chickmagalur, was 
detained under the orders of the District 

^f St if te ',Pi Ckmagalur on January 14 
vJffS tT d t f0T h o S anti "Government acti- 
vities. The Home Secretary recorded on 
January 29, 1976, that— 

IT?* ^. Ia / ation has been made by the 
D.M Chickmagalur, on his making con- 
fidential enquiries about the unlawful 
ac ivities of the detenu. He should have 
at least obtained a police report in support 
ofhis personal knowledge. The grounds 
on which the detention is made Ire in- 
SwSJ'S? * Furth f entries will be made 
about the grounds of detention and the 
matter examined afresh. 

Tn the meantime, the declaration 
made by the DM, Chickmagalur may be 
confirmed." 



The order was confirmed on February 3, 1976. 
The case was referred to the DIG (Intelli- 
gence), who reported on May 17, 1976, that— 

"It is seen from the records that Shri-H.D. 
Somegowda is an active Congress (O) leader 
of Chickmagalur and President of the Youth 
Congress, Chickmagalur District. He is also 
a Municipal Councillor, Chickmagalur Town 
Municipality. He is noticed participating 
mall meetings of Congress(O), Chickmagalur 
District. 

He has not come to notice for any ob- 
jectionable and overt activities." 

Though the continued detention of Shri Some 
Gowda was confirmed on May 
20, 1976, the case was referred to the 
Government of India on May 29, i976, 
requesting them to accord approval 
for the release of Shri Some Gowda. Govern- 
.,; ment of India turned down the case on June 
14, 1 976, on the ground that Shri Some Gowda 
had organised anti-emergency procession of 
the students during LSS agitation and it was 
apprehended that after his release, he was 
.likely to become active among students and 
Congress (O). The State Government was, 
therefore, asked to re-examine the case. The 
DIG (Intelligence) was directed to 
make fresh enquiry on the points 
mentioned in the report of GOI. The DIG 
(Intelligence) wrote on July 21, 1976, 
that "it is reported that he had not 
participated in any anti-emergency agitation 
and has not organised student agitations in 
the District. The individual is not likely to 
become active among students and Congress 
(O) and organise agitations on his release 
trom detention." A message was sent to 
, Government of India on July 27, 1976, seekinp 
approval for the release of Shri Some Gowda ' 
lhe file shows ; that no reply was received till 
January 13, 1977, despite 5 reminders sent 
S he L Governmei it of India. However, the 
State Government released Shri Some Gowda 
on parole on November 2, 1976, and it was 
extended from time to time until the Govern- 
ment revoked the order on January 15, 1977. 

(ii) Shri Raghuveer Naik, an active member of 
£Ji> was detained under the orders of the 
District Magistrate, South Kanara, on 
December 21, 1975. He was released on 
parole on October 28, 1975, as he was suf- 
fering from acute asthma. The health condi- 
tion of the detenu as per the report of the 
Assistant Surgeon, Central Jail, Bangalore 
was poor and it caused concern to the Govern- - 
m f?K messa S e was sent to the Government 
of India on November 4, 1976, requesting for 
their approval to revoke the order. No 
reply was received until January 22, 1977 
when the State Government revoked the order 
on its own, ^ 



77 



(Hi) Shri Shakeel Ra^a son of Shri Akbar AH 
Sahib, a Caretaker in the office of Jamaite-e- 
Islami Hind, Bangalore, was detained under 
the orders of Shri M. L. Chandra Shekhar, 
former Commissioner of Police, Bangalore, 
passed on July 4, 1975. It was alleged in the 
grounds of detention that Shri Shakeel Raza 
was a staunch member of JEI. Specific 
references were made to three public meetings, 
two at Bangalore in September, 1970 and 
December, 1972, and one at Mysore in 
October, 1974, where Shri Shakeel Raza was 
alleged to have addressed the gathering in 
furtherance of the cause of JEI. However, 
enquiries made with the DIG (Intelligence 
and Railways), Bangalore, have revealed that 
there are no reports regarding these public 
meetings addressed by Shri Shakeel Raza 
available in the office of the State Special 
Branch. The State Government confirmed 
the detention orders on July 14, 1975. The 
case was reviewed on December 4, 1976 and 
the Deputy Inspector General of 
Police (Intelligncce and Railways) 
was of the opinion that since Shri Shakeel 
Raza did not belong to the hard core 
of the banned organisation and was only 
a petty employee of this organisation, his 
case should be considered for revocation of 
the detention orders. A wireless message 
was, therefore, sent to Government of India 
on December 14, 1976, requesting them to 
accord approval for the revocation of deten- 
tion orders in respect of Shri Shakeel Raza 
on the ground that he was hot an activist 
and was merely a petty employee of the 
JEI, - -Bangalore; The Ministry of Home 
Affairs replied that : 

"According to information available with 
us Shri Shakeel Raza is an activist 'RUKAN' 
and Secretary of JEI of Karnataka. There 
are ho indications of any change in his 
attitude. He is said to command - good 
influence. It is, therefore, felt that his release 
may provide a fillip to the party's activities 
in the State. In the circumstances, it may 
not be opportune to consider the question 
of his release from detention at present. The 
State Government may like to re-examine the 
issue in the light of the above information." 

MHA's hie shows that the above advice was 
based on information received from the 
Intelligence Bureau. Shri Shakeel Raza was 
released on March 21, 1977, after revocation 
of the Emergency. 

19.150 Scrutiny has revealed that the State 
Government has released a large number of a de- 
tenus much before the revocation of emergency after 
considering their representations or reviewing their 
cases. 57 detenus were released between July and 
December, 1975, and 110 in the year 1976. It is seen 
from the records that 191 detenus out of a total of 
487 had been released before January 20, 1977, 
when the instructions were received from the Ministry 
of Home Affairs to relax the rigour of emergency and 
S/25 HA/78— 11 



release the political detenus who were not connected 
with the banned organisations. 170 detenus were 
released in January, 1977, as a result of review made 
by the Additional Home Secretary, jointly with the 
DIG (Intelligence) and Central Intelligence Office. 
and District authorities, 27 persons were released in 
February 1977. All the political detenus had been 
released by February 20, 1977. There were only 
110 persons, 94 members of the banned organisations 
and 16 economic offenders held in custody on March 
21, 1977, when the emergency was revoked and orders 
releasing all the detenus were issued. 

19.151 The Government of Karnataka has not 
given a definite reply to the Commission's question- 
naire regarding the policy evolved by the State 
Government on the subject of parole. Scrutiny 
has revealed that the requests from and on behalf of 
the detenus for grant of parole were processed in the 
Home Department on the basis of the recommenda- 
tions obtained from the DIG (Intelligence). A few 
illustrations are given below : 

(i) Shri Y. S. Patil, a staunch member of BJS 
was detained under the orders of the District 
Magistrate, Dharwar, on December 17, 

1975. He was released on parole for 20 days 
on May 17, 1976 on the ground that he was 
suffering from enlarged prostrate urinary 
infection. Parole was extended twice, once 
by 1 5 days and then by one month. However, 
he did not avail of the second extension of 
parole and surrendered to the Central Jail, 
Bellary, on June 22, 1976, as the condition 

■:■-— of- parole that he should remain within 
Bangalore City was not acceptable to him. 
He sent another petition on July 19, 1976, 
requesting for his release on medical grounds, 
which were certified by the medical report. 
He said that he was prepared to give an un- 
dertaking if the Government was ready to 
consider his release. He was released on 
parole for two months on September 17, 

1976. The State Government decided to 
revoke the detention order and the Govern- 
ment of India was approached on September 
22, 1976, for their views. , The Government 
of India replied on September 30, 1976, 
advising the State Government to extend the 
period of parole by three months instead of 
revoking the detention. The detention order 
was ultimately revoked on January 20, 1977. 
Shri Patil remained on parole throughout 
from September 17, 1976, onwards. 

(ii) Shri Panduranga Yeshwant Nifcharge de- 
tained under the orders of the District 
Magistrate, Belgaum, - issued on November 
13, 1975, was released on parole for three 
months on September 18, 1976, on health 
grounds. The parole was extended from time 
to time and he remained on parole until the 
detention order was revoked on March 21, 
1977. 

(W) Shri P. G. R. Sindia, detained in July 4, 1975, 
was released on parole for 'one month on 
November 25, 1976, on ^medical grounds. 



78 



The parole was extended from time to time 
and he remained on parole until the detention 
order was revoked on January 5, 1977. 

™ Jt 9 *L 52 tt* 1 * 8 k^ intonated by the State Govern- 

SS SSSlS It ^ ? ommis * ion ' s questionnaire 
that 9 MISA detenus were refused parole on the 
ground of death of * family member; 20 on he 
ground of marriage of a dependant and 109 on the 
ground of serious illness of a family member T 
following cases are noteworthy : 

(0 Shri Kariyappa was detained under MISA 
S. S' , Hls WI /e ^quested the authorities 
on September 2, 1976, for the release of her 
husband on account of her mother's death 
This was rejected on September 22, 1976 on 
the ground thta the detenu's fate who was 
also a MISA detenu had been released for 
one week for the same purpose. 

(it) Shri Baje Vaikunte, father of Shri B Y 
$*?#£' J M gA detenu, applied on January 
16, 1976 for the parole of his son on the 
ground that wedding of the detenu's daughter 
was fixed on February 6, 1976. The aonli 

moSer alS Th r f rS H t0 th ^ i,ieSS ° f the ***** 
S- Th + e T Hoi ^ e Department sent the 
application to the Commissioner of Police 
Bangalore for a report on January 27, 1976' 
No reply seems to have been received from 
if Con ? missl oner of Police till June 3 1976 
when the matter was closed. The Sta'e 
Government has stated in their reply to the 

S15S? «°° P r ar ° le that n ° decision ™ s ^ken 
in this case for want of Police report. 

(iii) Shri R. Ramma Murthy, a MISA detenu 
applied on December 29, 1976, for grant of 
parole for one month to enable hi m to attend 

hv 5S rm ' rl™ ret * uest was rejected 

by the Government. His wife Smt. I. Sundari 
sent similar application on January 5, 1976 
Which does not appear to have evoked any 
response from the authorities. She made 
anotner lequest on February 21 1976 
for the release of her husband on parole for 
one week and enclosed a copy of the minted 
invitauon card in proof of the wedding of her 
daughter fixed for March 8, 1976. This was 
also rejected on March £ 1976 The mt 

(iv) Shri S. Ahmed a MISA detenu applied for 
parole pn April 15, 1976, on the gS L that 
ms wife was sutTering from high blood pressure 
and kidney disease. The District auEes 

of hi, w I '• 1976 ' COnfinned the illness 
ot his wife since November 1975 The 

request was, however, rejected by the State 



(v) Shri IP . Ramachandra Bhat, a MISA detenu 

applied on February 15, 1976, requesting for 

■ the grant of parole from March 12, 1976 to 

iSX? 2 °' l 9 l?> *? enable Wm to ^tend the 
T5S W hls Slster **"* for March 14, 
*V , was re J ecte <* and he was informed 
on March 19 1976, i.e. five days after the 
wedding itself was over. 

(W) Shri K. Venkatesh Baliga, father of Shri 
K. Mohandas Baliga, a MISA detenu 
applied for the release of his son on parole 

nim m M ^ ^J* May 20 > 1976 > to ^able 
mm to attend his brother's wedding fixed 
for May 16, 1976. Copy of the priced 
invitation card was also enclosed with the 
application He was informed on May 7 
iy/6, that the request was rejected. He an' 
phed again on April 21, 1976 and May 8, 
19 tb, but no action was taken in view of the 

decision already taken and communicated to 
the applicant. 

,^vu)$hn Gurunath Kulkarni, a student, was 
detained on December 27, 1975, under MISA 
He filed a writ petition in the High Court of 

tnTi Pr f mS f ° r the issue of dire ^on 
to the State Government to release him on 
parole to enable him to appear for the PUC 
final examination. On this, the High Court 
passed an order on March 22, 1976 that the 
petitioner shall be taken for SSffitoS 
under police escort. The State Government 
brought this matter to the notice of the Central 
Government contending that the High Court 
was not empowered to issue directions rea- 
ding parole which was- within the exclusive 
discretion of the Government. An appeal 
was filed m the Supreme Court which grffi 
£ay order in respect of the order of the 
Karnataka High Court on April 1, 1976. 

KERALA 

detentions in Kerala during^^m'erg^ are : 



MISA 

COFEPOSA 

DISIR 



790 
97 

7134 



thJ 9 M A°! nt ? y of , ffles has > however, revealed 
that 827 detention orders were issued. As such 

arresteT nS cT™* absc ? nding and ^uld not be ' 
"given bel C ow?^ ryW1Se ' ^^ of 790 ***m 



(i) Members/Associates of Banned 

(«) Members/Associates of Political 
Parties 

(iii) Others ■ 



476 

221 
93 



-fSiKSIsflK 



— *7 ii?T^rr™'7^r-< p-. - >- 



iS'SSSi^ii^wVji,., 



79 



19.155 The third category includes economic 
offenders, criminals and other anti-social elements. 
As many as 61 persons were detained, who were 
alleged economic offenders. More than fifty per 
cent of the detenus allegedly belonged to the banned 
parties— 360 to CPIML, 115 to RSS and 1 to the 
Centre- of Indian Communists. Among the political 
parties, the largest number of detenus was 139 from 
CPM. There were 3 journalists, 45 school/university 
teachers, 34 trade union leaders, 29 public servants 
and four women among the detenus. 

19.156 Scrutiny of MIS A files has revealed that 
the grounds of detention in respect of political detenus 
were stereotyped, invariably on cyclostyled forms with 
blank space for the individual's name, and some other 
particulars. Grounds are found to be the same in 
each case of a group of detenus. For example, in 
the case of persons belonging to CPIML, in the majo- 
rity of cases grounds of detentions mention the politi- 
cal ideology of this party, the commitment of the in- 
dividual to this ideology, and some vague reports 
about his closeness to certain prominent workers or 
leaders of this party. There is hardly any reference 
to any specific activities, remote or recent, on the part 
of the detenu. In the case of the persons belonging 
to the nOn-CPI opposition parties, grounds mostly 
refer to the call given by this group for a country- 
wide agitation and mention that the person concerned 
was likely to take part in this agitation. It is often 
mentioned in such cases that the person concerned 
was being detained on the apprehension that he would 
indulge in prejudicial activities in response to the call 
from his party. In the case Of the workers of Socialist 
Party, the detentions were based on a single activity— 
a protest march taken out by them immediately after 
the declaration of emergency. The .following 
illustrations will throw light on the type of political 
detentions ordered in Kerala: 

(i) Shri Antony Alice Baby was detained under 
the orders of the District Magistrate, Idukki 
dated February 6, 1976, for alleged con- 
nections with the Centre of Indian Comniunists 
(CIC). It was stated in the grounds 
of detention that he was an active worker of 
CIC and had been engaged in implementing 
the decision of the party. The detaining 
authority wrote that there was every reason 
to believe that "Shri Antony was likely to 
incite the Government employees, students, 
workers and the general public to disobey 
. the orders of the Government and rise in 

■ ; rebellion against the Government". There 
was no reference to any specific activities 
on the part of Shri Antony, who remained 
under detention on the above grounds till 
March 23, 1977. . 

■■' (») S/Shri Shanmughan Janardhan, Mani alias 
Shankar and Narayana Velluny were detained 
under the orders of the District Magistrate, 
Trichur dated December 14, 1976. Grounds 
of detention refer to an agitation started 
by the "Lok Sangharsh Samiti from November 
14, 1975 against emergency. It is mentioned 
that the sponsors of this agitation were 



"known to be thinking in terms of resorting 
to violence including sabotage of vital instal- 
lations and attacks on the leaders of. the 
Ruling Party". These persons were alleged 
to be taking part in some secret meetings, 
particulars of which were not mentioned. 
They remained under detention apparently 
on the above grounds until emergency was 
lifted. 

(ui) Shri Thomas Ittoot was detained under the 
orders of the District Magistrate, Ernakulam 
dated January 16, 1976 allegedly for his pro- 
minent role in the Lok Sangharsh Samiti 
agitation. Grounds of detention refer to 
the call Of Shri Jayaprakash Narayan for a 
country-wide agitation. It is mentioned 
that Shri Ittoot was actively engaged in 
carrying out this call and "there is every 
reason to believe that he will continue to 
indulge in such activities and incite the armed 
forces, the police, the Government employees, 
students and general public to disobey the 
orders of the Government and rise in rebellion 
against the Government". There was no 
mention of any specific prejudicial activity, 
remote or recent, which could support the 
above apprehensions. 

(zv) Shri K. Shankar Narayan, Congress (O) 
President of Kerala, was detained under the 
orders of the District Magistrate, Trivandrum 
dated July 9, 1975. Grounds of detention 
refer to the meeting of the All India Opposi- 
tion Parties held at Delhi on June 25, 1975. 
It was mentioned that Shri Shankar Narayan 
was duty bound to prosecute the plan for 
country-wide agitation and that it was reliably 
learnt that he was acting in collusion with 
CPM for this purpose and "Hence it is reason- 
ably apprehended that this leader of Congress 
(O) will indulge in subversive activities 
including inciting the armed forces and police 
to mutiny in obedience to instructions from 
All India v leadership". Shri Shankar 
Narayan remained under detention on these 
grounds till October 11, 1975". 

19.1 57 Powers under MIS A were also used to deal 
with some ration shopkeepers found indulging in 
hoarding, profiteering and black-marketing and other 
corrupt practices. Files show that action against 
such persons was taken after the detection of irregula- 
rities through raids on their shops. However, it is 
not clear from the grounds of detention whether the 
persons concerned were habitual offenders or were 
ever dealt with under the normal law. MISA was 
also used against some businessmen who were allegedly 
disrupting the supply of essential commodities 
through manipulation of prices and smuggling. Some 
of them were detained under MISA for alleged 
evasion of taxes. Use of MISA was also made by the 
administration against big employers to pressurise 
them to settle labour dispute in favour of their emp- 
loyees. There are some instances of use of MISA 
to deal with persons found responsible for misappro- 
priation of funds belonging to the cooperative banks, 
or societies. Four persons of District Idukki were 



80 



detained under MISA for alleged destruction of "tree 
growth of soft wood species in the Cardomom Hill 
Reserve". DM Quilon used powers under MISA 
against two persons who were allegedly pursuing 
money-lending business. Use of MISA against or- 
dinary criminals, like thieves, bullies and. rowdies was 
made very sparingly. 

■■ 19.158 The following are the illustrations of 
detentions on non-political grounds: 

* (i) Shri Devassia Kurian detained under the 
orders of DM, Idukki dated August 27, 1975, 
was allegedly found on August 23, %915, 
transporting 7 quintals of ration-wheat in 
his jeep KLK-7279 driven by him. Grounds 
of detention mention that a regular case 
against him was also registered. The DM 
wrote that "There is every reason to believe 
that wheat seized from jeep No. KLK-7279 
on August 23, 1975 was the ration-wheat 
misappropriated from ration shops and that 
Shri Kurian is engaged in black-marketing 
ration articles". Shri Kurian remained under 
detention till December 28, 1975. 

(//) Shri K.J. Joseph, a ration shopkeeper, was 
detained under the orders of DM, Mallapuram 
dated July 22, 1975. It was observed that 
alter the detection of irregularities as a result 
pf an inspection by Civil Supplies Ration 
inspector, the temporary licence granted to 
fchri Joseph was suspended, Shri 
b. Narayanswami, Special Secretary (Home) 
recorded that in view of the suspension of the 
licence, the question of preventing the detenu 
Irom indulging in prejudicial activity becomes 
Sfk™ 11 * . and the order must be revoked. 
The Special Secretary (Food) however 
wrote that since the activity of the detenu 
shows scant respect and regard for the regu- 
latory provisions promulgated by the Govern- 
ment, his detention was justified. He, there- 
tore, requested the Special Secretary (Home) 
to reconsider his views. The Special Secretary 

30° 1975 •- pd ^ following note on Ju, y 

"I feel that it will be stretching the 
matter too far if we take a view as 
suggested by Secretary (Food), In my 
view, ARD licensee whose licence is 
suspended, cannot be regarded as likely 
to deal m any other essential commodity 
m the same mischievous ways. Such an 
argument is based on too many presump- 
tions. Minister (Home) may decide 
whether the declaration should be con- 
firmed or whether the detention order 
should be revoked." 

The Minister Shri Karunakaran rejected 
the views of the Special Secretary (Home) 

™ jX e 3imt m * thn of the declaration 

(i&) Sv %T ?l? M 5' T ' Kunhali dctai ^d on 
JUJy 26, 1975, under the orders of District 
Magistrate, Kozhikode, on the grounds of 



misappropriating certain quantities of rice 
and wheat was similar to that of Shri 
K, J. Joseph given above. The licence of 
Shri Kunhali was also suspended. Shri 
S. Narayanswamy, Special Secretary (Home) 
recorded on August 1, 1975, that since the 
licence of the shop had already been 
suspended, "it will be difficult to justify 
detention under MISA which is preventive 
m nature". The Special Secretary (Home), 
however, added that in the similar case, 
namely, that of Shri K. J. Joseph, the 
Minister (H) had agreed with the view of 
Special Secretary (Food) that such persons 
should also be detained. The file was .sent 
to the Minister for orders and the declaration 
was confirmed on August 2, 1975. Shri 
Kunhali was released on December .5, 1975, 

(iv) Shri K. V. Joseph, a rubber shop owner of 
Kottayam, was detained under the orders of 
the District Magistrate, Kottayam, dated 
July 29, 1976, allegedly for dismissing three 
workers without any proper reason and 
without following proper procedure. It was 
alleged that he had not cooperated with 
the District Labour Officer in this connection 
He was arrested on August 25, 1976, and 
the order was revoked on September JI 
1976 on the recommendations of DM' 
Kottayam, who wrote to the Home Depart- 
ment recommending Shri Josheph's release 

' on the ground that the labour dispute had 
by that time been amicably settled. 

(v) Detention of S/Shri N. S. Kudva and 
P. Gopalakrishna Shenoy, the managing 
partners of M/s. United Engineering 
Enterprise, Arool ordered by the District 
Magistrate, Alleppey on September 24, 1976 
offers another illustration of the use of MISA 
to deal with labour disputes. They were 
detained on account of some dispute between 
the management and the employees of the 
firm. However, grounds of detention also 
made vague references to the anti-social and 
anti-national character of these Engineers 
without citing any specific incident. Thev 
released on parole from September 29 to 
September 30, 1976 and parole was extended 
to October 8, 1976. The detention order was 
not confirmed by the State Government and 

fi!, W ?LfT d ^- apSe ,' U a PPears from the 
hie that after their release on parole, some 
negotiations had taken place and after the 
dispute was settled in accordance with the 
instructions of the authorities, the detention 
orders were allowed to lapse. 
(vi) Shri A. CChacko, aged 70 years, was detained 
under the orders of the District Magistrate, 

SaE 1f ted Aug ? st , 1 1- 1976 - The S round « 

of detention supplied by DIG (Emergency) 
mention that Shri Chacko had been taking 
anti-labour stance in all his firms for the last 
several years and was openly criticising the 
20 Point Economic Programme of the' then 
Prime Minister. It was also mentioned that 
m a raid conducted on his firm on August 13 



SB8sas&;M***::3; 



81 



1976, a case of tax evasion involving a huge 
amount was unearthed. His son submitted 
a petition to the Home Minister on August 26, 
1976 requesting for the release of his father 
who was aged over 70 and a chronic diabetic 
patient. It was enquired into by DIG 
(Intelligence) and the order was allowed to 
lapse on the basis of the police report which 
said that his detention had had a 'magic 
eifect' and the attitude of the firm towards 
the labourers and towards the Economic 
programme of the Government had changed 
since the arrest of Shri Chacko. 

(vii) A detention order under MISA against Shri 
Naziruddin was passed by the District 
Magistrate, Quilon on January 17, 1977. The 
detention order appears to have been based 
on. a dispute between the employees and 
management of Nazir Tiles Works, Ashtamuti. 
It appears that the management had declared 
a lock-out in the factory because of some 
labour troubles and Shri Naziruddin, the 
proprietor, was not accepting the advice 
of the administration to lift the lock-out. 
The Government confirmed the detention 
order on January 31, 1977. However, the 
District Magistrate revoked the order 
on his own on March 2, 1977, stating that 
"as the circumstances warranting his arrest 
and detention no longer exist, I have now 
issued order revoking the detention order". 
It is nowhere explained as to what the cir- 
cumstances referred to were and how they 
, had.changed—sinceTthe issue of the. detention 
order. File also shows that Shri Naziruddin 
was not actually arrested and it appears that 
he had gone underground and worked for the 
revocation of his detention order. 

(viii) Shri K. Mohd. Sali, Manager, Beena Industry, 
Manufacturing rolling shutters and rolling 
grills, was detained under the orders of the 
State Government dated October 8, 1975. 
The file shows that his 'detention was based 
on a dispute between the employees -and the 
management of the factory. It appears that 
. the management did not respect, the agree- 
ment arrived at during a meeting with the 
Deputy Labour Officer, Alwaye and later 
closed the factory on September 3, 1975. 
This led to a satyagraha by the workers. 
File shows that the matter went up to the 
Chief Minister and after a discussion among 
the Minister (A&L), Special Secretary 
(Home), Law Secretary and Labour Secretary, 
decision to use MISA was taken. Shri Sali 
was detained on October 9, 1975. He was 
released on parole from November 19, 1975 
to November 28, 1975. Certain negotiations 
appear to have taken place during this period. 
Shri Sali sent a petition to. the Government 
on December 4, 1975, and the order was 
revoked on December 6, 1975. It appears 
from the file that Shri Sali had, during the 
period of parole, settled the dispute to the 
satisfaction of the authorities. 



(ix) Shri Shashi Dharan was detained under the 
orders of the District Magistrate, Quilon, 
dated October 18, 1976; Grounds of detention 
show that he was lending money to economi- 
cally poorer sections of society and other 
people in financial difficulties and charging 
exorbitant rates of interest. It was further 
mentioned that "there is, also reason to 
believe that he is involved in serious economic 
offences". No specific incidents involving 
him in these matters were mentioned. Shri 
S. Narayanaswamy, Special Secretary (Home) 
recorded on October 28, 1976 that in cases of 
this kind, police could take action under 
normal laws and "I feel that use of MISA 
should be avoided for such purposes". 
Shri Karunakaran, Minister for Home, 
overruled Special Secretary (Home) and con- 
firmed the declaration on October 29, 1976. 
Shri Shashi Dharan remained under detention 
till February 23, 1977. His brother Babu 
Rajendra Prasad was also detained under 
MISA on the same ground and was released 
on February 23, 1977 only. 

(x) Shri M. A. Jayni was detained under the 
orders of the Commissioner of Police, 
Ernakulam dated August 25, 1975. He was 
a commission agent at Ernakulam Market 
earning Rs. 2000 to Rs. 4000 by way of 
commission. He was involved in a case 
under sections 323, 340 and 343 IPC on April 
20, 1975. Grounds of detention mention 
that he was an influential leader and "there 
■■-■'■■ :,V-is- reliable, information that he is financing 
the organisation of JEI which is a banned 
organisation. He is likely to sponsor 
a violent agitation programme of groups 
who are against the promulgation of the 
present emergency. He is likely to incite 
communal passion which will pose a serious 
threat to the security of the State and mainte- 
nance of public order." No specific inci- 
dents were quoted in support of the above 
allegation. File shows that in the margin 
of the page where these grounds were men- 
tioned, the Special Secretary (Home) had 
remarked "this may not be relied on as a 
ground. Delete in the letter to the Govern- 
ment of India." However, the order was 
confirmed by the State Government on 
September 6, 1975. 

(xi) Shri C. O, Shiv Chander Das, an arms and 
ammunition dealer of Trivandrum, was 
ordered to be detained by the District 
Magistrate, Trivandrum on May 6, 1976. 
Shri P. K. Hormeses Tharakan, SP (Economic 
Offences), Trivandrum, had written to the 
District Magistrate, Trivandrum, on May 5, 
1976, requesting for the issue of the detention 
order in respect of vShri Shiv Chander Das 
on the ground that one weapon identified as 
manufactured in China was recovered from 
his shop. It was mentioned that examination 
in police laboratory had confirmed the obli- 
teration of the number of the weapon. It 



was, therefore, suspected that the dealer was 
indulging in large scale smuggling of arms 
and his activity was prejudicial to the security 
of the State and maintenance of public order 
The District Magistrate appears to have acted 
on the basis of this report from SP (Economic 
Offences) without calling for a report from 
the District. Police. The file shows that 
Shri Shiv Chander Das could not be detained 
till September 3, 1976 when Shri A. Mohd. 
Junju, the new SP (Economic Offences) 
took over and wrote to the DM that after 
a search of the premises with the Central 
Excise and Income Tax authorities, it was 
found that there was no material to justify 
the conclusion that Shri Shiv Chander Das 
was indulging in a large scale smuggling of 
foreign arms. The District Magistrate was 
therefore, requested to revoke the detention 
order that was pending execution at that time 
Ihe District Magistrate revoked the order 
after obtaining approval from the 
Government. 

i. a 19 ^ 159 ^ s intimat ed by the Kerala Government 
all the detentions under MISA were ordered under 
section lfiA of the Act. No detenu was, therefore, 
communicated the grounds for his detention. As 

r r i e T^r q ^ irement of th0 Act > the declaration made 
by the DM m respect of persons-detained for effectively 
dealing with the emergency was required to be confir- 
med by the State Government within 15 days from the 
date of detention order. Replies to the Question- 
naire on detentions under MISA, COFEPOSA 
etc, show that in 12 cases the State Government did 
not confirm the declarations made by the Dsitrict 
Magistrates and those orders were allowed to lapse. 
With regard£to the detentions of non-political persons, 
such as, the economic offenders, unscrupulous busi- 
nessmen and other anti-social elements, the Home 
Department appears to have scrutinised the orders 
and in quite a few cases the Special Security (Home) 

SfifiS? ?£ n the file that the use of MIS ^ w * s ** 

jusunea ana tne matter could be dealt with under the 
S^ T > S d ^ scr , ibed above, in the cases of the 
' SSSEf r f f°^ de flers, whose licences had been 
in fh?^nn/ th & % d6teC r tl c 0n °. f certa ^ irregularities 
■JS«t ■ xSSS : ' VieW i° f Special Secretary (Home), 
SS H ^ A T $ £ ot relevant t0 suca ca ses, was no 
accepted by the Home Minister, who confirmed the 

ta£?££ T de *V he ^/Similarly S view 
Zi^Zr r l detentIon of moneylenders were also 
Sf £ K In the , ^, ase of detention of S/Shri 
Balakrishnan and S. Armugham, ordered by DM 
Palaghat on November II, 1976, on the ground of 
alleged misappropriation of funds belonging to co- 

?S V ^ an t kjth ^ piQi T 0fShri S - Nanf^swamy, 
Special Secretary (Home), that use of MISA in such 

SJSf e .7 M n0t Pr ° per ' Was ' howev er, accepted and 
declaration was not confirmed. 

»a ^-i^.Fow-monthly reviews of detentions 
th der ^ dUr A ng th ? emer ^ncy, were conducted £ 
the Home Department. In accordance with the 
instructions issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs 



82 



on October 10, 1975, a Cabinet Sub-Committee com- 
prising of Chief Minister, Home Minister and two 
other Ministers, was constituted for the purpose of 
^considering representations from the detenus and re- 
commending their release. This committee, though 
not formally involved in the four-monthly reviews, 
was also looking into these matters. Reviews were,' 
however, carried out in the Home Department on the 
basis of the recommendations from the detaining 
authorities. A scurtiny of files shows that these 
reviews were more or less a routine matter and con- 
tinued detentions of the detenus were invariably 
confirmed at the time of such reviews. Only in 
the cases of detentions of various ration dealer's, 
a decision was taken to revoke their orders at the time 
of their first four-monthly review. This was done 
under the belief that detention of such persons for four- 
months was sufficient considering the gravity of their 
prejudicial activities. 

19.161 The Cabinet Sub-Committee, used to meet 
periodically to consider the representations received 
from or on behalf of the detenus. Criteria laid down 
by^ the Government of India, namely, detenu's 
severance from his past political activities and assu- 
rance of good conduct in future, were followed in 
recommending the release of political detenus. Case 
of Shri R. Narayanan, a prominent worker of the 
Socialist Party, detained under the orders of District 
Magistrate, AUeppey dated July 11, 1975, may be 
quoted as an illustration in this regard. He was de- 
tained for his alleged active association with the JP 
Movement. He sent a petition on August 4, 1975 
stating that he fully supported the 20 Point Programme 
of Smt. Indira Gandhi and assured that he would not 
work against the Government in future. This was 
sent to the IGP, who enquired into it and wrote that 
inquiries reveal that he was having difference of 
opinion with the present policy of Socialist Party" 
The_ detention order was revoked on November 29, 
1975, after obtaining approval from the Government 
of India. Similarly, Shri P. A. Saif, Municipal 
Councillor, Puthen Pureylal, another Socialist Party 
Worker, detained on July 11, 1975, was released on 
August 8,^1975 on similar considerations, Same was 
the caseot Shri K.K. Mazid, another Socialist Party 
worker.; In fact, most of the detenus- belonging to 
the Socialist Party were released within a month or 
so of their detentions. While considering the release 
of political detenus, the reports from IG Police used 
to be given great weightage, and releases were 
recommended only after the police gave the clearance. ■ 

19.162 Examination of MISA files revealed a few 
instances m which the .State Government had decided 
to release some political detenus, but the Central 
Government did not approve the proposal for their 
release. ^ This will become clear from the following 
illustration: b 

The State Government sent a wireless mes- 
sage to the GOI on April 10, 1976 seeking 
their approval for revocation of detention 
orders m respect of S/Shri Krishnan Nair 
of Tnvandrum, N. N. Sadananda of Quilon 
Ram Chander Pfllai of Alleppey V p' 
KandhuniofPalaghat,. K. Narayana'Menon 



83 



of Mallapuram, and' T. Aiappan of Kozhikode, 
all belonging to CPM. This was turned 
down by Government of India vide their 
message of May 1, 1976 on the ground that 
these persons were important functionaries 
of CPM and had the potential to mobilise 
the party cadre in the State. The State 
Government sent another message on May 13, 
1976 saying that "The State Government have 
reconsidered their cases . in all its aspects 
and they are satisfied that they could be re- 
leased." Still the Government of India did 
not agree and wrote to the State Government 
on May 28, 1976 directing the release of 
, these persons on parole for two months 
instead_ of revocation of their detention orders. 
Detention orders were ultimately revoked 
on September 23, 1976. 

19.163 Examination of parole cases shows that 
the State Government was liberal in this regard. 
Requests for grant of parole were duly processed and 
sympathetically considered. Decision was taken 
only after ascertaining the views of the SP concerned 
and whenever the SP recommended grant of parole, 
it was given. Even prominent political leaders of 
the staunch opposition parties like CPM were'granted 
parole for sufficiently long time whenever their 
requests \ were found to be genuine. Shri K. 
Prushotham, a CPM detenu, was granted parole to 
attend his sister's wedding in January, 1977. Another 
political detenu Shri V. A. Joseph of Calicut was 
released temporarily in November, 1976 to attend to 
his ailing father. Shri K. K. Kunhikannam Vaidya, 
a CPM detenu of Conhanore, was granted parole in 

^December, 1976 to settle his daughter's wedding. 
Shri E. Kumaran, another CPM detenu of Cannanore, 
was granted parole oh the ground of illness of his 
brother-in-law. 

19.164 Even the RSS detenus were not normally 
refused parole when their requests were found to be 
genuine. Shri Shiv Shankar Alias T. S.' Shankaran, 
a RSS detenu of Trivandrum, was granted paro'lfr.in 
December 1976 on the ground that his family was 
experiencing financial difficulties. Shri N. Namadev 
Kamath, a MISA detenu belonging to RSS, was 
granted parole from January 7 to January 20, 1977, 
to attend to his ailing wife. 

19.165 The files show that the intimation of the 
decision on the request for parole was always sent to 
the detenu. No one appears to have been refused 
parole when it was applied for on the ground of ill- 
ness in the family or wedding of a near relative or some 
domestic problems requiring urgent attention. Some 
people were granted parole even on the ground of 
partition of property. Cases of Shri E. K. Imbachi 
Bave and Shri C. H. Ibrahim Haji of Cannanore 
District, both political detenus, may be cited as 
illustrations in this connection. Only in the case of 
detenus belonging to CPlML, the Government was 
rather strict in granting parole.' Their cases were 
considered only after obtaining a.report from the DIG 
(Crime). No CPIML detenu seems to have been 
released on parole. However, their requests ' for 
seeing some ailing family member were not completely 



ignored and arrangements were invariably made to 
send them under police escort to their families for a 
day or so. The casesjof Shri N. Chandran of Quilon, 
Shri Ishwaran Narayanan of Kottayam, can be cited 

in this connection. 

19.166 The scrutiny of files has revealed a few 
cases of refusal of parole. Some of these are as 
follows: 

(i) Shri V. R. Bhaskaran, a CPM detenu of 
District Kottayam, applied on September 9, 
1976, for grant of parole on the ground that 
his nephew was seriously ill. The report 
from SP Kottayam dated November 4, 1976, 
confirmed that his nephew' was hospitalised 
due to blood cancer and parole was recom- 
mended. However, the SP was asked to 
intimate whether there was any one else in the 
family to look after the ailing boy. On 
November 11, 1976, the SP intimated that 
the patient was being looked after by his 
parents. Request for parole was rejected and 
the detenu was informed accordingly On 
November 16, 1976. 

(ii) Smt K. P. Sarojini, wife of Vallan Kutty, 
a BJS detenu from Palaghat, applied on 
November 16, 1976, for the grant of 
parole to her husband on account of the 
illness of her mother. Report from SP 
Palaghat dated November 27, 1976 confirmed 
the illness but added that the old lady had 
three male adults and two others for looking 
after her. It was, therefore, not considered 
necessary to grant parole to her son-in-law, 
who was informed accordingly. 

(iii) Shri K. M. Ibrahim, a CPM detenu- of 
Kottayam, applied on October 6, 1976, for 
two weeks parole to enable him to attend the 
wedding of his brother fixed for October 
24, 1976. The report from SP Kottayam 
dated October 11, 1976, confirmed that the 
detenu's brother was getting 'married on 
October 24, 1976. However, the request 
was rejected on the ground that the detenu 
had already been granted six .days* parole 
in* August 1976 to see his sister's son. 

MADHYA PRADESH 

19.167 The total number of detentions under 
section 16A of the MISA and other Preventive laws 
during the period of emergency in this State was 
asunder: 



MISA 
COFEPOSA 

DISIR 



5,620 

11 

2,521 



19.168 Categorywise break-up of detentions under 
MISA is:— 

Political Parties 1,807 

Banned organisations 1,593 

Anti-socials, Criminals and others 2,220 



84 



19.169 It was seen that the State Government 
adopted a tough attitude regarding detentions under 
MISA from the very beginning. Several messages 
and instructions were sent to the District authori- 
ties during the last week of June 1975 and the first 
week of July 1975 asking them to exercise rigour 
in the matter of detaining persons under the MISA 
and to curb the slightest agitational activity at any 
cost. Some examples of the instructions issued by 
the State Government and IG police, in this regard, 
are given below: 

(i) Wireless message (unclassified) dated June 
26, 1975 from Home Secretary addressed to 
all District Magistrates and SPs mentioned 
"There should not be any hesitation or softness 
shown towards persons likely to prejudice 
internal security and any failure on this 
account resulting in disturbances in your 
district will be a reflection on your efficiency 
and watchfulness." The Chief Secretary, 
Madhya Pradesh also issued repeated ins- 
tructions to DMs exhorting them to be strict 
in preventing the slightest trouble in their 
districts and also made it clear that any 
laxity will be viewed seriously by the State 
Government. In his memo. No. 619/CS/75 
dated July 3, 1975 (in Hindi), he exhorted 
the district authorities not to allow any inci- 
dent to develop further and observed that 
those officers, who had displayed laxity came 
into trouble later on. In another memo. 
MP-633/CS/75, dated July 8, 1975', addressed 
to ell District Magistrates, the Chief Secretary 
stated — 

"I have however noticed that some 
DMs have been rather soft in ordering 
arrests and detentions. I would even 
go to the extent of saying that what they 
did has not come up to the expectations 
of the State Government. It is a well- 
known fact that soft-peddling of issues 
does not pay in the long run and sooner 
or later, a heavy price is to be paid. 1 ' 
. (ii) The IG of Police, Madhya Pradesh, also issued 
various messages to district police authorities. 
Radio message No. C-828 dated June 26, 
1975 from IG and the Home Secretary reads 
"Speed up preventive arrests of anti-social 

elements, potential agitators, AH 

arrests be made under MISA." Radio Mes- 
sage No. SB/46/75-IV dated June 27 
1975 from DIG, L&R, Bhopal: "Consider 
immediate arrests/detentions of influential 
and active elements of BJS and RSS". 
Another radio message No. SB/46/75-IV, 
dated June 28, 1975, from IG of Police men- 
tioned "Government feels that important 
BJS and RSS workers have not been rounded 
up. Please speed up action." 

19.170 In addition to this, the IG sent several 
DO letters to many SPs in districts enclosing a list of 
persons who were to be considered for detention under 
MISA. Though the language used in these letters 
was guarded, asking the SPs to check their activities 



and take necessary action, it was also stated "This is 
not a direction for punitive action. You are free to 
take your own decision." 

19.171 In its reply to the questionnaire, the State 
Government has given serveral instances in which 
instructions for detaining persons under the MISA 
were issued by the Cheif Minister, Chief Secretary, 
and the IG of Police. A few insturctions are quoted 
below : 

(i) "On the eve of the visit of Shri* V. C. Shuklato 
Raipur District in February 1976, Shri 
Shyama Charan Shukla, the theni'CM ordered 
the detention of Shri Lakhaii Lai Gupta, a 
Socialist worker, who had taken active part 
in agitations in 1972, but subscribed publicly 
to the 20-point Programme. Instructions were 
sent on telephone and were not followed by 
a written confirmation." 

(ii) "The Cheif Secretary on March 3, 1976, directed 
that DM Raipur be told on phone to detain 
s 4 persons as per list. No written confirma- 

tion followed." (Cases of Ganga Prasad 
Chandrakar, Sardar Jaswant Singh, Vithal 
Rao Mahaske and Arun Kumar Chandrakar — 
all of District Raipur.) 

(iii) "In some other cases, the orders of detention 
were given orally by the Deputy Secretary 
in the Office of the Chief Minister and the 
Commissioner of a Division." (Cases of 
Somchand Chamar of District Sagar, Kundan 
Misra and Dharampal Pathak of District 
Balaghat,) In the case of Somchand oral 
instructions were given to the DM by Deputy 
. Secretary to CM and the other two were 
detained on instructions from Commissioner, 
Jabalpur Division. 

(iv) "The then District Magistrate of Rewa has 
reported that Nipendra Singh son of Moradh- 
waj Singh of Rewa was detained on the basis 
of oral instructions from the Chief Secretary." 
The then DM Rewa in his letter No. 35/VSa/- 
CMS/77, dated December 15, 1977 (in Hindi) 
has categorically stated that he passed the 
detention order against Nipendra Singh on the 
oral instructions of the then Chief Secretary 
and not on the basis of any information'from 
the police record." 

(v) "Radio Message C.535 dated August 22, 1975 
from IG Police to SP Raipur reads : 

"l\Jf s been decide d to take action under 
MISA against the following as there is appre- 
hension and danger from them to public 
order and security. Please comply— 

(a) Surana Vakil ; 

(b) Chandel Vakil." 

19,172 Another feature of detentions in MP 
was that written instructions were issued by the State 
Government to the district authorities to indirectly 
persuade the detenus;to renounce their association with 



wifcMWKf^G^.ttWrtoBV 



political patties and express faith in the 20-point pro- 
gramme by tendering a written apology, as a condition 
precedent for considering release from detention. Vide 
memo No.; 639/CS/75,- -dated' July 9; 1975, the Cheif 
- Secretary ~. told the DMs : 

"There are many, persons who have been 
detained under MISA, section 151 Cr. PC 
and' other Acts on the basis- of their political 
affiliations, these persons are not necessarily 
law and order risks. It 'is not unlikely that 
some of these persons may tender an apology 
and also offer to make public declarations to 
the effect that they have discontinued their 
affiliations to their parties and that they have 
faith in the new economic programme of the 
PM. The Government are of the view that 
on tendering a written apology the cases of 
such persons should be reviewed in order to 
examine whether their detentions Or arrests 
should be discontinued. However, all cases 
of this nature should be reported to the State 
Government so that due publicity should be 
made about the written apology tendered 
by the aforesaid category of persons." 

19.173 Another memo. No. 647/CS/75, dated July 
12, 1975, from the Cheif Secretary: referred to the ear- 
lier-memo and asked the District Magistrates to 
ensure that in the written apology received from the 
detenus, it should come that they have severed rela- 
tions with their party, will not indulge in any disruptive 
or violent activity, will cooperate with the Government 
and also that they believe in the economic programme 
of the Government. 

19.174: Many persons were detained merely 
because they belonged to the opposition political 
parties and the grounds mentioned in their cases were 
apparently quite inadequate and sometimes irrelevant 
to the exercise of the power of detention under MISA. 
The main attack was on the Jan Sangh and the RSS. 
A large number of persons were detained on the 
ground of having associations with these orgainsa- 
tions. In many cases, the grounds of detention only 
revealed th at they had taken par t In Various party 
meetings, and agitations of the Jan Sangh launched in 
the years prior to 1975 without mentioning any activity 
near about the time or after the emergency." 

(i) Shri Ram Singh, Soni of District Raipur was 
detained on the basis of a report sent by 
SP which simply mentioned that he was an 
active worker of Jan Sangh and in the year 
1974, he had participated in several meetings 
organised by the Jan Sangh against rising 
prices and levy policy of the State Government. 

(ii) Shri Ahmed Bhai son of Shri Hussain Khan 
of District Vidisha, was detained on July 
4, 1975, on the basis of brief report sent by the 
SP which only mentioned that he had courted 
arrest in 1972-73 during agitations of Jan 
Sangh Party and on April, 13, 1975, he again 
courted arrest for opposing the Government 
policy on taxes and price rise. 

(iii) Shri Vishnu "Sharma of District Raipur was 
detained on September 17, 1976, on a report 
S/25 HA/78— 12 



of SP, Raipur that he was internally opposing 
the economic policy of the Government while 
showing outward support. He was sending 
false applications to the Government and was 
secretly propagating against family planning. 
He. was hoodwinking villagers and taking 
money from them. No specific instance of 
the above activities was cited. 

'19.175 By DO No. 6I1/CS-75, dated July 1, 
1975, the Chief Secretary directed all Collectors to 
take firm action against students indulging in disrup- 
tive activities. The Collectors and the SPs were 
required to prepare a list of troublesome students 
who were not to be admitted in any educational 
institution. MISA was also used to detain students 
and, in many cases, the detention^ were ordered on 
grounds like creating disturbances in examinations, 
misbehaviour with the Principal or indulging in copy- 
ing and similar activities. 

(i) Shri Aditya Narain son of Shri Balmukand, 
a student of Ujjain was detained on July 
30, 1975, on the grounds that he. took part in 
agitations and slogan-shouting by students in 
the year 1972 and on July 21, 1975, he shouted 

'shame shame' during the inauguration of 

Youth Festival by State Education Minister. 

(ii) Shri Vijay Kumar Pa til, a student of District 
Ujjain was detained on July 25, 1975, on the 
grounds tha* — -(a) on October 4, 1973, he had 
threatened a bus driver and (b) on September 
12, 1974, he beat a fellow student. In both 
these incidents, criminal cases were already 
launched against him in the court. 

19.176 MISA was also resorted to for curbing 
trade union activities in factories and Government 
, establishments. Some employees were detained 
merely because they spoke against the retrenchment 
of the staff or criticised the management. In many 
cases, only the past activities of participating in some 
agitations against the management were mentioned 
as the grounds . Shri J.F. Pahde, ' Secretary, All India 
Postal Employees' Union, Jabalpur was detained 
under MISA on April 10. 1976. The detention was 
ordered on the basis of a report by the Superintendent, 
Railway Mail Service and SP, Jabalpur, to the effect 
that Shri Pande and one Shri Mahindra Bajpaiwere 
provoking the RMS staff. It was further mentioned- 
in the report that on March 31, 1976, Shri Pande had 
led a group of RMS officials and raised slogans 
against the recent retrenchment of RMS staff. - 

• 19.177 Several journalists were detained on the 
ground that they had been publishing items against 
the local administration and had taken part in agita- 
tions against the local adminstration in the .previous 
years : 

(i) Shri Bhagwan Das Rathi, Editor of a weekly 
"Kranti Deep" of District Chindwara, was 
detained on July 17, 1975, on the grounds 
that he had taken part in- the. meetings and 
agitations against the local administration in 
the years 1973-74 ' He used to publish news 



items against the police and District Adminis- 
tration with a view to. blackmail the officers. 
(ii) Shri Ashok Kaushal, a journalist of District 
Seom, was detained on July 10, 1974 on a 
singe report of the SP alleging that he had 
published some false allegations in his fort- 
nightly newspaper "Wain Ganga" The 
alleged objectionable items were ; (a) about 
smuggling of jawar to Maharashtra with the 
conmvance of the local Food Department- 
(p) about corruption m local Civil Hospital ■ 
(P) giving a twisted version of an incident 
involving a Hindu boy and a Muslim girl 
He was also alleged to have expressed jubila- 
tion at the judgment of Allahabad High Court 
against Smt. Gandhi. e 

19.178 MISA was also resorted to against 
Government servants, University employees and 
empoyees of sem^-government undertakings, like the 
Elec ncity Board, etc. The total number of employ- 
ees m Government, offices, universities and semi 
government .undertakings like the Electricity SW, 
JS™ The . to tal number of employees in Government 
offices universities and semi-government undertaSs > 
7 el L a Tof entral government employees defined 

S-nkhi?^ T ™ 55 /u Ct ° rdin S t0 the information 
furnished by the Madhya Pradesh Governmen in 

Majority of the employees were detained on the alleea- 

i eacner and Shri Kundin Lai Mishra » 
Clerk in District Education Office, both of 

'55? that^ ^ detained on ■ Pol^ 
report that they were trying to heb certian 

H e owever W t h h°^ r ? aCCUSed « ^iSal cases 
However, their detent.ons were not confirm 5. 

1975 L til X * wa l det - amed on ^ 12 
W!5, on the basis of a single report that a 

hote ,?a^ut e 6 WhiIe H* f ™ « 
Citf 6 a "^- in the morning, had 

antilS ^»»^ 

bootlegging, etc. In many cases o^f ' glmblm S> 
offences under the ExcS ActTthe ear LT, ° F tWd 
mentioned by way of 2 rmmT ™ years were 
States, MISA Ls 4d f S™ de JnSt^i? ^T 
who could have been d^ffS^^ 

(ir ^dp^^^ a ;;^^ s 

distillation and were coveted fnd fi'ed by 



86 



1973-74 rti ^ SCVeral CaSe8 during the y ears 

(ii) Shri Ambika Prasad Patha of District 
Khandwa was detained on July 21 197s 
on the ground that he had taken part in a 
quarrel among students in Burhanpur Collece 

case u/s 389/147/323 IPC Had already been 
registered against him. No other prejudicial 
de!entfon WaS ment] ' oned in «* founds of 

19.180 Divisional level screening Committer 
were set up with the Divisional Commissbnef a 
Chairman Range DIG and concerned District mLS 

MISa""!^ a Th? mberS ' f ° F P-^dica/revietfof. 
ivii^A cases. These screening Committees wed v f rt 
submit quarterly reports concerning SereleaL fm™ £ 
continuation of detentions of tie detenS Z 

C^fZH 5° fin l° rderS in ^iew wTre'pa 'ed by h 
Chef Minister., The State Government in its/eplv 

smed miSS10US ^ est ionnaire on detentions has 

method of obtaining rel^f bylend^ing^ 
letter of apology and a public declarator? of 
severance of relations with the party to which 
the detenu belonged and adherence to 21™ nt 
pragramme was laid down by the Govtnmem 
if ^^ m , Unicatioil5 > <&ed My * 197? 
A^nl 197 ^ Jul ? I2 ' 19 75and July 29, 975 
All cases where the detenus tendered ap 00 ev - 
severed their affiliations with the Sartv p5h 
Kf fuI1 **h « the New EcoLmic 

made about the written apologies tendered 

(h) On October 10, 1975, the Government of 
India laid down the policy of e£ vSL 

(IJ.II.), dated October 10, J 975 ad >h~ ™ 
wntulon were to be c^iSed by t Se" 
Coranuttee, under the chairmanship of Chtf 

' „-t h U ,T • epartm . ei,t ma y aIs ° be associated 
of he c'ntrSTSf' L ° n CaI ' e P^»«ive 
be consuked •' ^^ B " reaU Was als0 *> 

form'd'Lno i^fo^rS^'^^^ further i»" 
of detention pS by ' S^St** 
Howiver, the scrntinv „fj.„,. Dlst "« Magistrate. 

that even „ t no S ec%e/ifSl°^ CaSeS , has reve8k d 



■immeiM&mmm --■■.: 



87 



19.182 In several cases even though serious legal 
and procedural irregularities were committed by the 
District Magistrates in passing the detention order, 
no notice was taken in the Home Department and the 
orders were confirmed. In the case of Prof. M. M. 
Chaturvedi of Gwalior College and 9 others, the Dis- 
trict Magistrate, Gwalior, passed a combined order of 
detention in respect of 10 persons which was not 
legally permissible ; yet this order was confirmed by the 
State Government. In 41 cases of District 'Dhar, a 
serious legal error was committed. The District Magis- 
trate in his orders' of detention- mentioned the period 
of detention as 12 months when, according to law, he 
had no authority to detain a person under the MISA 
for a period beyond 15 days. This serious irregularity 
went unnoticed in the Home Department and the 
orders of detention were confirmed. However, 
after a period of one year, this illegality was noticed 
and the detention orders were revoked by the State 
Government and replaced by fresh detention orders 
after obtaining advice of the Law Department. _ While 
issuing fresh detention orders, another serious irregu- 
larity was committed at the State Government level. 
In 28 out of 41 cases, the orders of detention were 
issued in the forms used for detention under the 
COFEPOSA which mentioned prevention of smuggl- 
ing as an item in the grounds. This mistake obviously 
occurred because wrong forms were used while issuing 
the orders. The Home Secretary himself used to 
confirm the orders of detention and the cases were not 
put up to the Chief Minister. This clearly discloses 
that the entire exercise was mechanical and without 
any application of mind. However, as regards perio- 
dical review, the orders of the Chief Minister were 
obtained for releasing detenus. It was noticed that 
the recommendations of the Divisional Screening 
Committee were not always accepted by the State 
Government. In many cases, the persons were re- 
leased though the Divisional Committee recommended 
continuation of detention and vice versa. After 
every review,- a ..list of persons ordered .to., be released 
was kept in the file which was signed by the Chief 
Minister, but no reasons were ever given- for continu- 
ing or not continuing^the detention of persons. ■• ^ 

19.183 Even though a large number of persons 
■ were detained under the MISA, no adequate machi- 
nery was set up by the State Government to inquire 
into the complaints regarding wrongful detentions of 
person and abuse of powers by the district authorities. 
In their reply to the questionnaire on detentions sent 
by the Commission, the State Government itself has 
stated : 

"Practice adopted in the Home Department 
was to send such complaints in origin? 1 to the 
Inspector General of Police, the Commissioner 
and the DM. The number of such complaints 
was so large and scrutiny in the Home Dept. 
so scant ly that sometimes it resulted 
in D.Ms, receiving complaints against them- 
selves for disposal. Since no record has been 
maintained, no exact number can be given." 

19.184 In- reply to the "Commission's question- 
naire on detentions, the State Government iias men- 
tioned that after August 20, 1975, the District Magis- 
trates were delegated powers to release detenus on 



parole for a period not exceeding 13 days for attending 
to obsequies of near relations like parents, grand- 
parents, sons and daughters, husband/wife, father-in- 
law and mother-in-law, subject to the condition of 
executing a bond with surety. On October 9, 1975, 
powers to grant parole for a period not exceeding two 
days in cases of serious illness of detenu's close relatives 
were also delegated to the District Magistrates. The 
period was further enhanced to 7 days vide order 
dated October 4, 1976. Thus Madhya Pradesh was 
the only State in which some powers to grant parole 
were delegated to the district authorities. In the 
remaining cases, parole was granted by the State 
Government. 

19.185 It was seen that at the State level, some- 
times parole was granted directly by the Chief Minister 
on applications presented to him on behalf of the 
detenus. (Cases of Shri Rishab Kumar Jain and 4 others 
of Sagar, Shri Komal Singh Raghuvanshi of District 
Guna, Shri Ram Prasad Shivhare of District Guna). 
Notes were received from the Chief Minister's office 
giving names of persons to whom parole was granted 
and no reasons were mentioned. Normally, parole 
was granted by the Home Secretary, in most of the 
cases. It was seen that in many cases parole was 
granted on the grounds which were not found accept- 
able in other cases. 

19.186 The following few examples are 

revealing :— 

Cases in which parole was refused : 

(i) Shri Manohar Singh Death of grandmother, 
of Datia. 

(ii) Shri Ramesh Chandra Marriage of younger 

Chaurasiya of Dist. brother. 

Jabalpur. 

(hi) fiheru Das of District Death of bis sisters ; " 

Dhar. - 

(iv) Shri Balrishan Singh, Abduction of his eldest 
District Sarguja.' daughter. 

(v) Dr.Purnendu Ghosh, Illness of wife and daugh-. 
District Bilaspur. . ter (medical certificate 
produced). 

Cases in which parole was granted * 
(i) Shri Rang Lai Rawat, For brother's illness. 
District Jabalpur. 

(ii) Shri Nirmal Chandra For the marriage of 
Jain, District Jabalpur brother-in-law. 

(iii) Shri Babulal Gupta, Aunt's marriage. 
Gwalior. 

(iv) Shri Rajaram Moghe, One month parole for. 
Gwalior. nephew's marriage. 

Shri Suraj Bhan Singh of Gwalior was granted parole 
for sixty days by the Chief Minister, but no application 
of his was avilable on the file nor it was known for what 
reasons he had been granted parole. 



™ £. 187 # Memo. typ. 31-49/75/X/i, dated January 
30, 1976 (in Hindi) from the State Home Department 
stated that since the Vidhan Sabha session was to 
start from February 5 ? 1976, the District Magistrate, 
while granting parole to MLAs in detention, should 
insert a specific condition that the detenu will not go 
to, Bhopal during the period of his parole and shall 
not take part in any political activity. The memo, 
further directed the District Magistrates not to men- 
tion in the order, the condition that the detenu will 
not take part in the Vidhan Sabha Session. 

MAHARASHTRA 

19.188 According to the information given by 
the State Government, the total number of persons 
detained under the MISA and other Preventive Laws 
m this State was as below : — 



MISA . 
COFEPOSA 
DISIR ". 



5,473 

400 

9,799 



, ^i?* 1 . 89 Categorywise break-up of detentions under 
MISA is as follows :— 



Political Parties 
Banned Organisations 
Anti-socials & Criminals 
Others . 



780 
1,717 
2,794 

182 



19.190 Among members and associates of politi- 
cal Opposition parties, the largest number was of 
followers of BJS (503) followed by the members of 
the Socialist Party (207). Detenus allegedly belong- 
ing to or having connections with RSS topped the list 
among the banned orgainsations (1,578). Anti- 
socials and criminals constituted more than half 
of the total number of detenus under the MISA. 

19.191 Detentions were ordered and declarations 
under Section 16A(3) were issued by District Magis- 
trates and Police Commissioners within their respective 
jurisdictions and reports- were sent to the State Govern- 
ment for confirmation. At the Government level the 
cases were processed in the Home Department and 
were put up to the Minister of State for Home for 
final orders. _ Generally, cases in which' confirmation 
of the detention order was not recommended by the 
Home Department, "were put up before the Chief 
Minister for final orders. It was seen that a majority 
of the cases were recommended for confirmation on 
the basis of the District Magistrate's report. Only 
in 98 out of 5,473 detention cases, the State Govern- 
ment refused4p confirm the detention orders passed 
by District authorities. The opinion of the Law 
Department was not obtained before issuing orders of 
confirmation. 

19.192 A large number of detentions of political 
persons and those belonging to banned organisations 
were made without mentioning any specific activity 
on their part. The grounds put up by the police 



before the detaining authority merely ' mentioned in 
general terms their past political activities such as 
taking part in Opposition meetings, etc. In a large 
number of cases from Bombay, Poona and Nagpur 
City, the Police Commissioners ordered the detentions 
of persons with political affiliation merely on a brief 
report by the subordinate officers stating that a named 
person was a member of a particular Opposition 
party and his activities were prejudicial to the emer- 
gency without mentioning any incident or fact to 
substantiate the allegation regarding prejudicial acti- 
vity. In other Districts also, the District Magistrates 
passed detention orders in a similar manner. 

19.193 To cite a few examples, one Shri Purshot- 
tam Narayan Bapat of District Ratnagiri was detained 
on December 11, 1975. The grounds of detention 
given in his case only mentioned that he was a staunch 
BJS follower and it was likely that he would partici- 
pate in a nti- Government activities. But no specific 
incident relating to his past or present activities was 
mentioned. The grounds of detention mentioned jn 
the case of Shri Nabhiraj Maruti Mohalkar of District 
Sholapur detained on January 19, 1976, were that .he 
was a member of the -Socialist Party and this party 
was going to intensify its programme of opposition 
to the Government No other activity was mentioned 
in the grounds. 

19.194 A large number of persons belonging to 
banned orgmsations were detained only after mention- 
ing the general ground that they were connected with 
the RSS or JEI. No specific activity was referred to 
in the grounds, which could be regarded as prejudicial 
to the security of State or public order. Simply 
being a member of or having connections with a banned 
organisation was considered sufficient for detaining 
a person under the MISA. (Cases of Shri Manohar 
Gopal Rao Bongirwar, Shri Indra Raj Thakre, 
Shri Krishna Gajanan Gode— all teachers in private 
schools in District Bhandara; Shri Sharad Shrinivas 
Nambholkar, District Jalgaon ; Shri Sadashiv Govind 
Chauhan, Poona, Shri Ali Akbar Ghulam Hussain, 
Nasik). 

19.195 In a number of cases the practice adopted 
was that a combined general report against 10 or 20 
persons was sent by the police to the detaining autho- 
rity for ordering detentions under MISA. This report 
was accompanied by a brief four or five line riote 
regarding each person and these notes only mentioned 
that the named person was a member or sympathiser 
of a named party or organisation, without mentioning 
any specific activity— past or present. To cite an 
example, a combined general report with such brief ' 
and general notes, dated November 24, 1975 was 
sent in respect" of S/Shri Bhaiyalal Zabbaji, Madhav 
Laxman Rajurkar and 15 others of Bombay City to 
the Police Commissioner who passed the orders of 
detention, keeping a copy of this report in each case 
as grounds of detention. 

19.196 There were few cases of persons beine 
wrongly detained under MISA due to mistaken iden- 
tity. In some cases, the State Government got 'an 
inquiry conducted through DIG/CID which revealed 






S9 



that the grounds of detention in these cases were false 
and concocted. In reply to the Commission's question- 
naire on detentions, the State Government has reported 
as follows : — 

"In four cases, the Intelligence Agencies or 
the District jQfftcers-repor ted about misuse of 
MIS A provisions. The details are as follows :— 

1. Shri Murlidhar Harinarayan Katod, 
RSS, Ahmed ha gar ; 

He was detained on 15-1-76 on the 
grounds that he was an active BJS and 
RSS worker and had taken part in the agi- 
tation of the Sangharsha Samiti. He was 
released on 22-1-1977. The Dy. Inspector 
General, Intelligence, CID later brought 
to notice that (i) detenu was not holding 
any party position ; (ii) he had not taken 
any active part in the demonstrations 
stated ; (Hi) his name did not figure in the 
FIRof Shrirampur Police Station; (iv) 
no letter about staging of demonstration 
was written by him ; and (v) the entire 
proposal was based on incorrect 
narration. 

The detention order was initially con- 
firmed by the Government. However, it 
was revoked subsequently on the advice 
of the Administrative Committee as the 
detenu was neither an office bearer nor an 
. active worker. 

,u . ■:-'■■:■-■ Z ., Radhe&hyaniNandlal Tiwari, Anti-social, 
Bhandara : 

He was detained on 23-8-75 as an 
anti-social but the District Magistrate 
later reported that he was not an anti- 
social and therefore he should be released. 
The administrative committee recommen- 
ded his release and he was > released^ on 
5-3-1976. 

3. Pannalal Mohanlal Pokhama, Ahmed- 
nagar : 

He was detained on 31-5-1976 as 
he had amassed wealth by means of 
money lending business. He was released 
on 21-2-1977. 

The Dy, Inspector General, Intelli- 
gence, CID reported that the detenu 
was detained as he had filed ah applica- 
tion in the High Court for contempt of 
Court against the Revenue and Police 
Officers. 

4. Shri Vilas Virchand Desai, RSS, Ahmed- 
hagar : 

He was detained -on 30-10-1975 as 
he was a faithful and active RSS worker. 
He was released on 28-12-1976. 

the Deputy Inspector General, 
Intelligence, CID reported that Sh. Vilas 



Desai was wrongly detained due to mis- 
taken identity. He was detained instead 
ofoneVasudeo Vishrem Desai." 

19.197 ShrLVasant Rao Shankar Kulkarni of 
Ahmadnagar District also remained in detention from 
February 6, 1976" to February 22, 1977 because of 
"mistaken identity". His wrongful detention was 
confirmed by the DIG/CID after inquiry. In the case 
of Shri Jagannath J. Joshi, Principal, Dharangaon 
College, detained on July 19, 1975, on the ground 
of being an RSS worker, the State Government made 
inquiry through DIG/CID which revealed that the ' 
allegations against him were false. A reference was 
made to the Government of India for revocation 
of his detention order. Government of India's con- 
currence was received on July 2, 1976, but on the" 
papers submitted to the Chief Minister no orders for 
release of the detenu were passed and Shri Joshi 
continued in detention till January 26, 1977. 

19.198 In two cases of District Dhulia, detention 
orders were issued against persons who had already 
died. (Cases of Shri Amrut Sonar and Shri Achyut 
Vaidya). The Superintendent of Police had proposed 
their detention on the basis of their alleged association 
with the RSS but after the detention orders were issued 
he reported that on verification these persons were 
found to have died earlier. 

19.199 Some persons were detained on grounds 
which did not fall within the purview of Section 
3(1) of the MISA. The detention of Shri Somesh 
Chandra Verma, District Nanded was ordered on. 

"October 1 4, 1 975,^ on the basis "Of a report by Assistant 
Collector of Nanded mentioning that the detenu had 
defrauded the Government and many other persons 
in cases of Land Acquisition. He had obtained orders 
from the civil court for getting a much larger amount 
by way of compensation from the State Government, 
than was awarded earlier by the Land Acquisition 
Officer. 

19.200 In some cases of District Usmanabad, it 
was seen that the District Magistrate passed the order 
of detention mentioning that the detenu be detained 
for a period of four months' which was illegal. However 
this illegality went unnoticed in the State Home 
Department and the detention orders were confirmed. 
(Cases of S/Shri Sandipan Nivrati Bandegire, 
Hanumant G. Deshmukh, Maruti Dajiba Burud). . 

19.201 Many persons were detained on the ground 
of having been involved in ordinary offences like theft, 
assault, quarrelling, etc., which could have been 
dealt with under the normal law. A large number of 
persons allegedly involved in "bootlegging'* and matka 
gambling actiyities was detained under the MISA. 
But in many cases the grounds given were of a general 
nature, mentioning that the person was involved in 
these activities, without giving any specific instance tp„ 
substantiate the allegations. In many such cases 
where instances of offences concerning "bootlegging" 
and matka gambling were given, no previous con- 
victions could be shown. Criminal activities many 
years earlier were also made the basis for ordering 



90 



Radhakrishnan Madhyan of District Ahmednagar 
SS? T. a i mg i e report of SP mentioning in genfra 
terms that the detenu was an anti-social engaged in 
matka + business and was also holding secret meeting 
against the emergency, but no definite f Qr | 

instances of the above activities were mentioned. 

Julv Ml Sf DlStrie J N ^ ded was det ^ned on 
Ju y 19 1 975 on the grounds of being involved in some 
petty offences m 1973-74 and one incident of May 19 
1975^ was ; also mentioned. Excepting a prohibition 

ES?2. sWRU5 ' "°"™ ™ 

c*J 9 ^° 2 Acc0rd i n S ^ the information given by the 
State Government, 57 Central Government employees! 
23 State Government employees, J5 employees. of 
municipal bodies and 24 employees of the Bombay 

sen ^v ExSf n det t t ined UU t der MISA durin * SS 
Tr^r iWS? th ^ cm ^°y^ of Bombay Port 
Trust, most of the other Government servants were 
detained on grounds of having association with the 
oanhed organisations particularly the RSS The 

sS;^ bay Po * Trust w - deta - d *>; 

A,J£? 03 n The ? tate Government had constituted an 
Advisory Committee with the Additional Chief Secre- 

lJ£> ?£ airrnan *£? Specia] IG Poli <*> DIG/CID 
?£?« mt S ?T} m - (Home > as members, for reviewing 
the cases of detention. The recommendations of thif 
committee Were put up before the Minister of State 

rec^Zt- n ™\°I de l S - - Bm * was «« that the 
ttl^u! Elda ^ n .° f the Review Committee regarding 
the release of detenus was not always accepted by thf 

SffiSlJJSSfrt In , s r:\ Cas l s ' the Mentions were 
conSarl ?„ fw mmUed fU ? h ^ r ^ the Chdf Minister 
■Swf? the commendations of the Committee 

^rVrT ^ Were f iv ^ h * the Cheif Minister in h& 
S«dh?r'7iSTN°f S/Shri Pu ^otum Khandekar 
fJFiWW', In some cases > the Chief Minister 
or the Minister of State for Home used to order ha 

STt C t nUedfbr SOmc tim «more or tha 
review be done after two months. (Cases of S/Shri 
R. G. Maruskar, Fidda Hussain). 

cround^L^? 65 * 5 ? r § rantin g P a roIe on health 

ISet£v Tn i/° Sed 0f 'S the levd of the Home 
secretary In many cases, Deputy Secretary (Honied 

also used to dispose of such applications. A 1 other 

requests were put up to the Minister of State for Home 

for final orders. Generally, a scale regarding the 

period of parole was adopted for certaiS occafions 

£'&$!! °/d m /v tr V aSe S f da ^hter, 3 days for maS 
age ot son, 3 days for death of a family member 

S e 4 a ^ b ;i granted t0 Student d etenu"r t ne 

(i) Upto graduate level 10 days prior to the 

commencement of 
examination till the . 
examination was 
over. 



(ii) Post-graduate 



20 days prior to the 
commencement of 
examination till 

the examination was 
over. 



19.205 The State Government in its reply to the 
Commission's questionnaire has mentioned :— 

"Steps were taken to systematise grant of 
parole to detenus desirous of appearing for 
various examinations. Such paroles were 
generally granted except to persons who were 
reported to be hard core of banned 
organisations." ■ 

19.206 No fixed scale was followed in respect of 
illness or for medical treatment of the detenu. Gene- 
rally, requests for parole from sick detenus for having 
medical treatment or operation by their family doctor 
or doctor of their choice were rejected on the ground 
that the treatment could be had in Government hospi- 
tal- (Cases of S/Sliri Pirajee I. Bhurivar, Bombay ; 
K. D. Rawalani, Distt. Jalgaon). 

„ lu' 2 V } n ^°, mes cases > requests for parole even 
on the death of father or mother of the detenu were 
rejected on the ground that the detenu was a notorious 
person and might go underground. (Cases of Baba 
BotabSo "' ° mbay ; Shri Jagdish Chandra, 



MANIPUR 

19.208 Figures of arrests and detentions in Mani- 
pur during the emergency as supplied by the State 
Sre"™ 6 - m ^^ t0 tKe Commission s question- 



MISA . 
COFEPOSA 
. DISIR , 



231 

16 

228 



19 209 Scrutiny of MISA files has, however 

£m?^ % ° nly - - 143 P ersons were actually- 
detained and the remaining 88 went underground and 
could not be arrested. Categorywise breafupof the 
Mii>A detenus is given below :— 



(i) Members/Associates of 
banned organisations 

(ii) Members/Associates of 
political parties . 

(iii) Others 



2 (both of RSS) 



14- 
■127 



The third category includes members of outlawed 
organisations like Mizo National Front, Revolut on ?rv 
Gov ernn?ent f Mampur, etc., criminals like thieves 
and receivers of stolen property, rowdies and buuS 
smugglers and other anti-social elements. ' 

vnil' 2 10 A s ^ ru ^ in y ha s revealed that powers under 
MISA were used extensively to deal with person^sus- 
pected of connections with the hostiles engaged 7n 
insurgency. The number of persons detained on the 
grounds .of ^insurgency and anti-social acdvitie? far 
outnumbered the politica 1 detentions. L/Llvllies rar 

t,Ji?' 21 K T ? ere - were n0 Journalists, lawyers' 
teachers trade- union leaders, students and wS ' 
among the detenus. MISA was not used agka 

fu UbllC ,A ei ; vant durin S the emergency. There S 
three MLAs of the Manipur People's Party amon^ ™ 



91 



liiiiinminiiniTiT 



political detenus. .The scrutiny of MISA files has 
shown that the grounds of detention in respect of the 
political detenus were of a general nature and referred 
to criticism of emergency. In the cases of persons 
detained on the ground of insurgency, the detaining 
authorities appear to have acted on the basis of sus- 
picion only as the grounds of detention in respect of 
most of the persons of this category do not indicate 
any specific provision about their prejudicial activities. 
A unique feature of such detections in Manipur is that 
the detaining authorities, particularly the District 
Magistrate (East) acted without any police report in 
most of the cases and ordered detentions on the basis 
of his own information. MIS A was used against a 
large number of anti-social elements allegedly indulg- 
ing in criminal activities. Grounds of detention in 
cases of this category also lack reference to specific 
incidents and offences involving these persons 'which 
could support the allegations made against them. 
For example, one Shri Kuba son of Shri Kartgba was 
detained under the orders of DM (North) on September 
20^ 1976 on the basis of a report of Incharge Police 
, Station, Mao. The report only mentioned that Shri 
Kuba was a terror in the area and no one was willing 
to give evidence against him. He remained under 
detention till February 25, 1977 apparently on this 
ground only. 

19.212 The following cases of different categories 
illustrate the manner in which powers under MISA 
in the State of Manipur were used during the 
emergency:— 

(0 Shri N. Narayan ^ Singh and Shri L. Jatra 
Singh were detained under the orders of 
District Magistrate (Central) issued on 
December 15, 1975, for their alleged RSS 
activities. It was also mentioned in the 
grounds of detention that these persons were 
collaborating with the Socialist Party, Mani- 
pur, for organising agitations to discredit 
the then Government. They were also 
accused of indulging in distribution of anti- 
Government pamphlets, though no specific 
details were given in this regard. The 
detention orders were confirmed by the State 
Government on December 29, 1 975, Their 
detentions continued and on January 27, 
1977, Shri Nimai Singh, ex-State Minister, 
wrote to the Chief Minister saying that Shri 
N. Narayan Singh was still being kept under 
detention whereas all other Socialist Party 
political detenus had been released by that 
time.- -The- - Chie'f Minister recorded on the 
file that "Why he has been left? He is a 
SSP detenu under MISA. Release him 
immediately", and marked the file to 
Additional Chief Secretary and Joint Secre- 
tary (Home). The case of Shri Narayan 
Singh was discussed in the meeting of the 
Review Committee on February 3, 1977 
at which the DIG/SIB pointed out that Shri 
N. Narayan Singh was an active member 
of SSP only and was not connected with 
RSS. The DC (Central) had also reported 
on February 1 2, 1977 that he was not asso- 
ciated with the activities of the RSS. When 



the file was put up to the Chief Minister 
along with the reports of the DIG/SIB and 
DC (Central), he recorded "As discussed in 
the Review Board today, Shri Narayan Singh 
is found to be an SSP worker as verified 
by the SIB. He may, therefore, be re- 
leased". The order in respect of Shri 
Narayan Singh was revoked on February 
4, 1977. Shri Jatra Singh was released on 
March 21, 1977, 

(//) Shri W. I bo men a, aged 15 years, was detained 
under the orders of District Magistrate 
(Central), dated March 1, 1976. Grounds 
of detention mention that he was a notorious 
goonda and active supporter of anti-social 
Revolutionary Party in .Manipur, whose 
members had committed a number of 
robberies and dacoities in Imphal from 196S 
to 1971. It was also alleged that he was 
involved in a case of copper wire theft in 
1974 and another of theft of street lamps 
in January 1975. He was released on March 
3,1, J 976 as a result of consideration of a 
representation sent by his father. 

19.213 10 persons were detained under normal 
MISA and grounds of detention wen? communicated 
to the detenus concerned. Six of these cases were 
not approved by the State Government and the 
persons concerned were released within 12 days. 
Four cases were referred to the Advisory Board, 
which rejected three of them and detention orders 
had to be revoked. In respect of the fourth case, 
namely that of Shri Ako Shaiza, the State Government 
ordered revocation on the day the Advisory Board 
was to review the case. . The review was, therefore, 
considered redundant and was abandoned. 

i 19.214 133 persons were detained under MISA 
invoking Section 16A and as such none of them was 
communicated ths grounds of his detention. As 
intimated by the State Government, . 14 of these 
cases were not found fit for confirmation and the 
persons concerned were released after the expiry 
of 15 days. Law ' Department appears to have been 
actively associated with the scrutiny Of cases in the 
Home Department and its opinion was invariably 
accepted. In the case of one Shri Pukho detained 
on January 27, 1976, on the ground that he was in- 
volved in one case of 392 IPC and was a notorious 
bad character, the opinion of the Law Secretary that 
he should be dealt with under ordinary law, was 
accepted and the detention was not Confirmed. As 
orders in respect of the political detenus and hard 
core hostihs and their suspected supporters were 
issued on the recommendations of the IGP, there 
was no detailed scrutiny of these cases and deten- 
tions order?d by the DMs were confirmed. In 
a few of the other cases where the detentions were 
ordered by the DMs on their own, the Home Depart- 
ment examined the grounds of detentions critically 
and pointed out their irrelevancy or inadequacy. 
The examination of files has revealed that the Chief 
Minister used to record long notes in. his own hand 
and conducted a thorough scrutiny of the cases 



92 



referred to him for obtaining his orders for confir- 
mation. He is seen to have disagreed with the Chief 
Secretary m a few cases. This will be clear from the 
following examples : — 

(i) Shri M. Daili was detained under the orders 
of District Magistrate (North) issued on 
February 14, 1977, for his alleged dangerous 
and desperate character and connections with 
the undergrounds. The Chief Secretary re- 

; commended the confirmation of detention 
order but the Chief Minister recorded on 
the file that MIS A should be used sparingly 
in accordance with the instiuctions of the 
MHA and persons of this category should 
be dealt with under the normal law. The 
Chief Minister ordered Shri Daili's release 
on February 18, 1977. The orders of release 
was. however, issued on March 4, 1977 as 
the Chief Secretary had asked for a report 
from the IGP regarding other cases pending 
against the detenu. 

(«) Shri James Lokho was detained under the 
orders of the State Government issued on 
February 12, 1977, on the basis of a report 
from the IGP. This report mentioned that 
Shri Lokho was noted for adverse activities 
and had been known earlier for having secret 
links with the underground Nagas and was 
detained in 1970-71. The report contained 
a vague mention of his renewed activities 
among the Naga youth. When the file was 
put up to the Chief Minister, he recorded 
that the grounds were vague and detention 
seemed to have been manipulated by some 
opposition elements as Shri Lokho was an 
independent candidate for the coming Lok 
Sabha elections. The order was, therefore 
revoked on February 6, 1977. 

(Hi) Shri Devi Prasad was detained under the 
orders, dated November 11, 1976, of District 
Magistrate (North) as an alleged defaulter 
of loans taken from the State Cooperative 
Bank. It was mentioned in the grounds 
of detention that such activities tended to 
defeat the 20-point programme. Shri E. 
Sonamani Singh, Joint Secretary (Home) 
in his noting, dated November 18, 1976, 
recorded that the grounds of detention did 
not attract provisions of MISA and that 
"DC (North)" should be informed that he 
should apply his legal mind before he exer- 
cises his power again under MISA". Shri 
H. S. Bulalia, Chief Secretary, however, 
recorded a note on November 19, 1976, to 
say that he felt that such persons could' be 
and should be arrested under MISA. The 
Chief Minister, however, did not agree with 
Chief Secretary and the order was. not con- 
firmed as was proposed by the Joint Secretary 
(Home). 

(iv) Shri Ph. Iboyaima Sharma was detained 
under the orders of District Magistrate 
■(Central), dated March 1, 1976, on the ground 



that he was a habitual criminal. However, 
only one case of September 13, 1974, was 
cited in support of this allegation. A petition 
was sent to the Chief Minister alleging that 
the order of detention in this case was 
meant for one Ph.; Iboyaima Sharma of 
Uropok Phurailatpam Lairembi, Imphal, 
and in his place Shri Sharma of Huidrom 
Leiki was arrested by mistake. The Chief 
Secretary mentioned in his noting that the 
grounds of detention completely ruled out 
the possibility of this being a case of mis- 
taken identity. However, the Chief Minister 
recorded a note saying that since the address 
given in the detention order did not tally 
with the particulars given in the requisition 
letter of the Superintendent of Police, who 
had proposed the detention of this man, 
there was a doubt and the benefit of that 
doubt must be given to. the, detenu. ' The 
order was accordingly revoked on March 
15, 1976. 

'•19.215 In accordance with the instructions issued 
from the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of 
India, in October- 1975, a State level Committee was 
constituted on 24th November 1975, for reviewing 
the cases of persons detained under MJSA in respect 
o£ whom a declaration under Section 16 A had be,en 
issued. The composition ' of this Committee was; 



The Chief Minister 


Chairman 


DIG/CID 


Member 


Secretary (Law) 


Member 


Joint Director (SIB) 


Member 


Secretary (Home) 


Member 



Before this Committee was constituted, the review 
cases used to be considered by the IGP, Law Secretary 
and Home Secretary and thereafter the orders of the 
Chief Minister were obtained. The scrutiny has 
clearly shown that the four-monthly review of 
detention cases was carried out very systematically 
and the Review Committee used to meet periodically 
to consider the cases for continued detention. Some- 
time's cases of important persons arrested under 
DISIR were also discussed by the Committee. The 
Committee met 7 times between December 1975 
and February 1977 and a large number of detenus 
were released as a result of its deliberations. In the 
first meeting held on December 5, 1975, the Chief 
Minister had ordered that all the detenus must be got 
medically checked up and the IG Prisons should 
make weekly visits to the Jail. In the meeting of 
March 20, 1976, the cases of persons detained, foi 
their alleged support to the hostiles were discussed 
and it was decided to release such persons if they 
gave a bond for good behaviour expressing their 
acceptance of the Shillong Agreement of November 
1975 between the Government and the Naga hostiles 
and provided the CID had no objection to their* 
release. The meeting held on June 19, 1976 turned 
out to be the most important meeting as 28 detenus, 
including 24 bad characters, were released on its' 
recommendations. The ; opinion,.- of the- District 



™ZZ3£2°1!XBK 



- :' 



;i= j gJ&ki^CjtV •J&f .*,.<* ^ 



93 



authority used to be given due consideration in arriv- 
ing at such decisions. It goes to the credit of this 
Committee that a large number of persons were 
released much earlier than the emergency was lifted. 

19.216 While considering the release of political 
detenus, . the Committee used to follow strictly 
the criteria laid down by the Government of India. 
The main consideration which weighed with the 
Committee to recommend the release of a political 
detenu was invariably his severance of links with 
the Opposition party to which he belonged, followed 
by declaration of support to the 20-point programme. 
This will be clear from the following illustrations : — 

(i) Shri N. Ningthou Singh, an important leader 
of the Socialist Party, Manipur, was detained 
in August 1975 allegedly for anti-Government 
and anti-emergency activities. His request 
for release on parole in September 1975 on 
the ground of illness of his wife, who was 
undergoing treatment for womb cancer, 
was turned down on the basis of a report 
of the IGP against him. He sent a petition 
on October 6, 1975 regretting his past politi- 
cal activities and confirming his faith in the 
20-point programme of Smt. Indira Gandhi. 
Along with his petition he sent the letter of 
resignation to the Chairman of the Socialist 
Party and also an application to the President, 
MPCC, for joining the Congress Party. The 
Joint Secretary (Home) recorded on October 
9, 1975 that "CS has directed that the letter 
of resignation from the Socialist Party, sub- 
mitted by the detenu, Shri Ningthou Singh, 
is to be publicised and Shri Singh is to be 
released forthwith by tomorrow." It is seen 
from the file that a copy of his letter was sent 
for publication is all the leading papers and 
detention order was revoked on October 14, 
".,..,',. ,1975.... .... ■■ ..: v .... 

(ii) Shri P. Kulchandra Singh, another Socialist 
leader detained in August 1975, sent a' peti- 
tion dated August 4, 1976, intimating that he 
had resigned from the Socialist Party with 
effect from August 1, 1976; and that "I have 
now well convinced that the Socialist Party 
is not progressive and rather it indulges in 
anti-social and an ti -national activities." A 
copy of his resignation letter and statement to 
that effect published in "Simant Pratika" 
daily were enclosed with his petition and it 
was mentioned that the statement was broad- 
cast by the All India Radio in the news bulle- 
tin on August b 2, 1976. The Chief Minister 
recorded on this petition as follows :— 

"Since he has resigned from the Socialist 
Party by open publication to the. news- 
paper and broadcast by AIR and pleaded 
his faith to PM and her 20 Point Prog- 
ramme, he may be released forthwith." 
File shows that the Chief Secretary 
spoke to Shri Nayyar, Joint Secretary, 
MHA, in this connection and the order 
was revoked on September 13, 1976. 
S/25 HA/78-13 



19.217 Scrutiny of files has revealed that the 
attitude of the State Government in matters relating 
to grant of parole was reasonably considerate and 
humane. It is seen that most of the parole appli- 
cations which had resulted in grant of parole, were 
submitted direct to the Chief Minister and the Chief 
Minister had ordered grant of parole on the applica- 
tion itself. The Home Department used to issue 
formal orders only. Though no policy was laid down 
for the processing of the parole applications, requests 
for grant of parole appear to have been considered 
sympathetically. It has been intimated by the State 
Government that there was no incident where parole 
was refused on the ground of death of a family member 
marriage of a dependent, or serious illness of a family 
member, except in the following two cases : — 

(i) Shri N. Ningthou Singh, a Socialist Party 
leader detained in August 1975, requested on 
September 1, 1975, for grant of parole for 
two months on the ground of the illness of 
his wife. He had stated that there was no 
male member in the family to escort his 
ailing wife to Dibrugarh for medical check- 
up -which was prescribed by doctors. This 
was sent to the IGP for report. The IG 
confirmed on September 14, 1975 that the wife 
of the petitioner had undergone treatment 
in Dibrugarh Hospital from May 9, 1975 to 
June 5, 1975 and was operated upon for 
womb cancer and was required to go to 
Dibrugarh Hospital after three months. It 
was also confirmed that there was no male 
member in the family except the detenu. The 
IGP concluded the report by saying that 
"However, it may not be advisable to release 
him in the present situation" and his request 
for parole was rejected. However, his deten- 
tion was revoked! on October 14, 1975 after 
he resigned from the Socialist Party and the 
news about his resignation was given wide 
publicity. 

(ii) Shri G. Ibohal Sharma, an SSP worker 
detained on August 9, 1 975 applied for parole 
. for 15 days on March 15, 1976 on the ground 

of illness of his wife. The IGP was asked to 
send a report. The IGP forwarded on April 
15, 1976 the report from the Sub-Inspector 
Incharge Police Station, Sinjamen without 
adding any comments or recommendations. 
The report confirmed that the detenu's wife 
had been suffering from bronchial asthma 
since the last week of March 1976 and' was 
undergoing treatment. However, the Sub- 
Inspector concluded his report by saying that 
"It is said that she has a little improved now." 
In view of this report, parole was rejected ^by- 
the Chief Secretary on May 13, t.9.76* .The 
file does not appear to have been put up to' 
the Chief Minister. 



MEGHALAYA 

19.218 In reply to the Commission's ques- 
tionnaire, the Government of Meghalaya has supplied 



the following figures of arrests and detentions made 
in Meghalaya State during the period of emergency:— 

MISA . . . 39 

COFEPOSA . . . .. . 6 

DISIR - ■'. . . .20 

19.219, Scrutiny 'of MISA files has, however, 
revealed that 49 detention orders under MISA were 
issued. Ten persons went underground and could 
not be detained. All the orders were issued under 
Section 16-A of the Act and on that account grounds 
of detention were not communicated to any of the 
detenus. 

19.220 Categorywise break-up of MISA cases 
is given below : — 

(i) Members or Associates of banned 
organisations . . . . 14 

(ii) Members or Associates of Political . 
', Parties ■ .. . , . 2 



(iii) Others 



23 



19.22r RSS accounting for 13 detentions has 
suffered the brunt of Government action against the 
organisations banned by the Central Government 
There are only two cases of a political nature, one 
of a Congress leader, named Shri G. Mathow, and 
the other of Shri M. N. Majaw, a sitting ML A of Hill 
State People's Democratic Party. These leaders 
appear to have been detained on account of their 
anti-Government and anti-emergency activities In 
the. category of 'Others', there are 10 cases of alleged 
espionage involving 4 Bangladesh and 6 Indian 
nationals and 7 cases of foreigners overstaying in 
India. These persons were detained on the basis of 
recommendations of the State Special Branch. Re- 
commendations for the detention of 3 Bangladesh 
nationals Were received from the Government of 
Nagaland. Files show that they were arrested along 
with some Naga hostiles and were being tried for 
offences against the State. After the Government 
took decision to release the Naga hostiles involved 
m this case, it was considered necessary to detain these 
persons under the MISA and the Government of 
Meghalaya was requested accordingly. They were 
released in August, 1976, apd repatriated to Bangla- 
desh, i 

19.222 The break-up of MISA cases, given above, 
shows that use of MISA was directed mainly against 
tfie members of banned organisations and anti- 
national elements including a large number of 
foreigners. Only one case of non-political category 
involving 11 detenus deserves specific mentioning 
District Magistrate, Khasi Hills issued detention order 
in respect of U persons on August 18, 1975, for their 
alleged illicit distillation of liquor. Grounds of deten- 
tion mention that these persons were habitual 
offenders since 1972 and their activities had resulted 
in diversion of a vital foodstuff, i.e., rice from the 
genuine consumers and caused a serious rice shortage 
m Shillong. The State-level Review Committee also 
satisfied itself about the justification of their deten- 
tion by ascertaining from the Excise Department 



details like volume of turnover, quantity of rice diver- 
ted and period through which these activities were 
carried on by these persons. 

19.223 Scrutiny has revealed that 29 detention 
orders were issued by the State Government itself. 
Only 10 persons, 3 of RSS, 1 of Anand Marg, and 
illicit distillers were -detained under the orders of 
the District Magistrates. All the detentions except 
m the case of illicit distillers were ordered on the 
specific recommendations of the Special Branch. 
In none of the cases of political workers, members 
of banned organisations, or anti-national elements, 
was the decision taken at the level of the District 
Magistrate. 

19.224 Resort to MISA was taken only 'after 
receipt of the orders from the Government of India 
banning certain organisations. The earliest detentions 
ordered m July 1975 were in respect of members and 
associates of RSS and Anand Marg. No detention 
under MISA was ordered in Meghalaya after 26th 
August, 1976. 

19.225 All the ten detention orders issued by the 
District Magistrates were confirmed by the State 
Government. Four-monthly review was conducted 
by a State level Review Committee constituted in 
accordance with the instructions issued by the Ministry 
of Home Affairs on October 10, 1975 as under -— 



The Chief Minister . 
Chief Secretary 
Secretary (Home & Political) 
DIG Special Branch CID . 
Deputy Director, SIB, Shillong 
Secretary (Law Department) 
Collector of Customs 



. Chairman 

. Member 
. Member 
. Member 
. Member. 
. Member 
. Member 



This Committee held 10 sittings between November 
4, 1975 and January 15, 1977. Proceedings of these 
meetings show that the cases of detention due for 
review were considered individually and the represen- 
tations were examined in the light of the guidelines 
set out by the Government of India. The review was 
conducted on the basis of recommendations of the 
Special Branch regarding the continued detention of 
each detenu. ,It has also been seen that the Special 
Branch invariably used to call for a report from the 
SP concerned. 

19.226 As many as 16 persons out of the total of 
39 detained under MISA, were released much before 
the revocation of emergency as a result of the re- * 
commendations of the Review Committee. This 
number included 6 RSS detenus, 2 political detenus 
and 2 Bangladesh nationals. In some cases which 
come under political category, the Committee re- 
commended grant of parole to the detenu concerned 
and the District authorities were directed to watch their 
activities and sent reports for consideration at the 
time of the next review, 



;, -#fWS»sf 



??»«sBssffi=saaa'3;v- r-wi&Z™ 



95 



19.227 Detention of 6 persons detained under 
MISA for illicit distillation was reviewed by the State 
level Committee five times. In the meeting on 
November .4, 1975, the Committee decided to obtain 
from the Excise Department particulars regarding 
the volume of illicit distillation, the quantity of rice 
diverted as a result of this activity and the period 
over which these activities were carried on. One of 
the detenus, namely, Smt. Ka Kwin Malngiang, who 
was keeping a four-month old baby with her in Jail, 
was released on February 18, 1976 as a result of con- 
sideration of her case on compassionate grounds by 
the Committee on December 16, 1975. The remaining 
detenus of this category were released in phases 
determined by the magnitude of their offences. 

19.228 There were occasions when the recommen- 
dations of the Review Committee were turned down by 
the Central Government. In its first meeting held on 
November 4, 1975, the Review Committee recommen- 
ded, the release of S/Shri Raj Kumar Bhattacharjee, 
Shekhar Ranjan Das, Kumud Bandhu Bhattacharjee 
and Ratan Lai Saraf all of RSS. Shri Raj Kumar 
Bhattacharjee was recommended for release keeping 
m view his age and failing health. Others were re- 
commended for release on the basis of the undertaking 

. given by them to dissociate themselves from actiyities 
of the RSS and to support the then Prime Minister's 
programme. A letter was writien to the Government 
of India on November 26, 1975 seeking their approval 
for issuing the revocation orders. The Government 
of India, vide their letter of 23rd December, 1975, 
agreed to the release of Shri Raj Kumar Bhattacharjee 
and Shri Ratan Lai Saraf only and they were released 
accordingly on January 7, 1976. Shri Shekhar " 
Ranjan Das and Shri Kumud Bandhu Bhattacharjee 
continued in detention till March 21, 1977. 

19.229 Scrutiny of files has revealed that the 
State Government had followed a' liberal policy in 
matters relating to the grant of parole. Only in 
respect of the persons detained for reasons of security 
of State and on espionage charges, the facility of 
release on parole was not given. Applications received'" 
from or on behalf of the detenus in this regard were 
sent to the State Special Branch for enquiry -and 'recom- 
mendations. Invariably the Special Branch used to 
consult the District SP concerned before making 
recommendations. Release on parole appears to 
have been granted entirely on the recommendations 
of the Special Branch which used to be considered 
by the Rleview^Committee. A scrutiny -of files reveals 
that the Government had followed a very humane 
attitude in this matter and even the. members of the 
banned organisations were not deprived of this faci- 
lity, whenever requests were found to be genuine. 
Some detenus were released on parole without any 
formal requests from them. This was done following 
the consideration of their representations against the 
detention and in view of their undertakings that they 
would not indulge in any prejudicial activities. It is 
also seen that whenever a person was released on 
parole, the question of extension of parole was con- 
sidered by the Review Committee and extensions 
were granted from time to time. As such, a large 
number of persons released for a specified period 
in the first instance had remained on parole until 



their detention orders were revoked. A few illustra- 
tive cases are given below : — 

(i) Shri Lila Ram, an RSS detenu, detained on 
March 31, 1976, was granted three months' 
parole on August 6, 1976 on health grounds. 
It was extended thrice and he remained 
on parole until the detention order was 
revoked on March 21, 1977. 

(ii) Shri Ratan Kumar Palit, another RSS 

. detenu, detained on August 20, 1975, was 

released on parole for three months in August 

1976 and remained on parole until the order 

was revoked on March 9, 1977. 

(iii) Shri G. Mawthoh, a political detenu belong- 
ing to the Congress Party, detained on 
August 4, 1976, was granted four months' 
parole on August 19, 1976, and had remained 
on parole until the detention order was revo- 
ked on January 17, 1977. He had actually 
been undsr detention for 15 days or so. 

(iv) Another political detenu, Shri M. N. Majaw 
of Hill State People's Democratic Party, 
detained on September 18, 1975, was released 
on parole for six months on August 19, 
1976 and the detention ordsr was revoked on 
January 7, 1977 before the expiry of the 
p2riod of parole. 

(v) The case of Shri Chanchal Majumdar, a 
student detenu Of RSS, will further show 
that the State Government was considerate 
in the grant of parole to MISA detenus. 
Hj was detained on December 21, 1975. 
Hi was granted three months' parole on 
August 16, 1976 to enable him to prosecute 
his studies. His request to allow him to go to 
Tura during the period of parole was also 
accepted. He was also allowed to take ad- 
mission in the Government College, Tura, 
during the psriod of parole. He was released 
on October \\ 1976, before the expiry of 
the period of parole. 

NAGALAND 

19.230 In reply to the Commission's ques- 
tionnaire, the Government of Nagaland has supplied 
the following figures of arrests and detentions made 
in Nagaland during the period of emergency : — 



MISA 

COFEPOSA 
DISIR . 



92 

Nil 

4 



19.231 The scrutiny of MISA files of Nagaland 
has, however, revealed that 95 persons, and not 92, 
were detained under MISA. Though according to 
the information supplied by the State Government, 
only 39 detentions were ordered under Section l6At r 
scrutiny has shown that all the detentions weje 
ordered by invoking this Section. This has also 
been confirmed by the State Government, vitk their 
wireless message No. CON/204/77, dated July 21, 



96 



; 19.232 Categorywise break-up of MISA deten- 
tions is given below : — 

(i) Members or Associates of banned 
organisations . . . . Nil 

(ii) Members or Associates of Political 
Parties ; * . . . 9 



(iii) Others 



86 



19.233 The third category includes 25 alleged 
economic offenders; but mainly comprises persons 
detained for reasons of the security of State, viz., 
supporters of the underground Naga movement] 
opponents of Shillong Agreement of November, 
1975, between the Government of India and Naga 
hostiles, cases Of attempted hijacking/ex-filtration and 
persons, caught returning from or trying to eo to 
China. J h h 

19.234 21 persons mainly from the business 
community- were detained allegedly for economic 
offences, such as, blackmarketing and hoarding of 
foodgrains, violation of orders regarding display of 
stock and prices of essential commodities and evasion 
of sales-tax. 

19.235 As intimated by 'the State Government in 
reply to the questionnaire on "Circumstances leading 

t0 ) hs ■£% s ?& Dp y and Arrests/Detentions", powers 
under MISA were not used at all to deal with the 
Opposition political parties until April 1976", when the 
first. political detention in'respect of Shri AzuNewamai 
ex-Deputy Minister, was ordered on April 5 1976 
Only 9 political workers including 8 of United Demo- 
cratic Front, were detained under MISA. Powers 
under MISA were not used to deal with the members 
Of the banned organisations. Four members of 
Anand Marg were, however, arrested under DISIR 

19.236 A scrutinypias revealed some unique fea- 
tures in the detentions ordered in Nagaland during the 
emergency Though all the 95 persons were detained 
under MISA making use of the emergency provisions 
of the Act contained in Section 16A, no separate 
declaration as contemplated by this Section was 
made by the' detaining authorities. It was mentioned 
in the detention order itself that the detention of the 
person concerned was considered necessary for 
effectively dealing with the emergency and as such 
grounds _of detention were not being communi- 
cated. Declaration under Section 16A of MISA 
cannot form part of the detention order issued under 
Section 3 of the MISA and is required to be issued 
separately m the prescribed form. This legal require- 
ment does noUppear to have been satisfied in the 
cases of detention in Nagaland. 

V 19 -?? 7 I? has also been observed that the detain- 
ing authorities, particularly the DC, Kohima, were 
not forwarding the grounds of detention to the State 
Government which was required to review the declara- 
tion made by the DCs and confirm the detentions 
ordered in; the interest of emergency. This is evident 
from a noting of Shri K. S. Puri, the Home Secretary 



dated September 24, 1975, directing the Under Secre- 
tary (Political) to issue instructions to all the DCs 
to send the grounds of detention within one week 
of detention. It is seen from several files that the 
Government was finding it difficult to review the 
detentions ordered by DC, Kohima, within the sti- 
pulated period of 15 days for want of grounds of 
detention. 

19.238 Detention of economic offenders also 
presents a unique pattern. DC, Kohima, had issued 
detention orders in respect of 21 persons of this 
category. The grounds of detention in each case refer 
to a single incident or transaction. Thirteen orders 
were revoked by the DC himself before the cases 
came up for review by the State Government. .Seven 
cases were rejected by the State Government as the 
orders were not found fit for confirmation.. Only one 
detention was confirmed and "the detenu, named Shri 
Rafiquiciin, remained under detention for about five 
months. 

19.239 Given below are some of the cases of 
■detention under MISA Ordered in Nagaland during 
the period of emergency : — *" * 

(i) Shri Doulhou G. B. (village Chief) was de- 
tained on December 6, 1976, on the basis of 
a letter written by one Shri Lhoukuole, alle- 
ged to be a person of unsound mind, to Shri 
J. B. Jasokie, the then Chief Minister 
Nagaland, saying that Shri Doulhou had 
asked him, over a drink, to kill the Chief 
Minister. He alleged that his refusal to 
oblige Shri Doulhou had infuriated the latter 
who had used his influence to get him admit- 
ted to jail as a lunatic. Shri Doulhou 
appears to have been detained 011 the basis 
of interrogation of Shri Lhoukuole conducted 
by the Magistrate First Class, Kohima, on 
December 3, 1976. ' 

(ii) Shri Sohan Lai Sharma and Shri Darulie 
Karos were detained under the orders of 
District Magistrate, Kohima, dated September 
6, 1975. File shows that Shri M. Ramunny 
Adviser (Development) and Special Secretary 
to Governor, had written to the DC 
Kohima, on August 29, 1975, directing, him 
to contact a raid on the premises ofM/s 
Maithou to verify whether the stock of 921 
bundles of CGI sheets released from TISCO 
- for Nagaland were collected by the firm 
and brought to Dimapur. Accordingly 
a raid was made by Extra Assistant Commis- 
sioner, Kohima on September 3, 1975 

a ?i^ ot a sin Z le bundIe of CGI sheets out 
of 100 metric tonnes allotted to M/s. Maithou 
and party m January, 1975, was found during 
the raid. It was learnt that Shri Maithou was 
a minor and his father Shri Darulie was' con- 
ducting the actual deal. Shri Darulie men- 
tioned to the Extra Assistant Commissioner 
that Shri Sohan Lai Sharma was also asso- 
ciated with him in this transaction. Deten- 
tion orders m respect of Shri Sohan Lai 
Sharma and Shri Darulie were, therefore 



97 



issued on September 6, 1975, apparently on 
the. suspicion that the firm had collected 
the material and disposed it of at Calcutta, 
depriving the State of Nagaland of its allot- 
ted quota of CGI sheets. The file shows that 
detention order in respect Of Shri Sohan Lai 
was revoked on September 8, 1975, by the 
DM, Kohima on the basis of an application 
from Shri Darulie that Shri Sohan Lai had 
nothing to do with this matter. The firm 
wrote to the DC requesting for the release 
of Shri Darulie on parole to enable him to go 
to Calcutta. DC forwarded his case to the 
State Government recommending grant of 
parole for 21 days and revocation, of the deten- 
tion order," "if "allotted quota of 100 metric 
tonnes was collected and brought to 
Nagaland. File shows that the Home Depart- 
ment wrote to the DC on September 24, 1975, 
to the effect that the period of 15 days had al- 
ready expired and a full report regarding the 
grounds of detention was still awaited from 
him. The, Government, therefore, ordered-the 
release of the detenu. This case also shows that 
the statutory requirement of review of the de- 
claration within 1 5 days from the date of order 
was not strictly adhered to. The order of 
the DM, dated September 6, 1975, had ceased 
to have any legal validity after September 21, 
1975, for want of the confirmation of the 
declaration by the State authority. 

(iii) Shri Nozo Angami and 9 others were detained 
under the orders of DC, Kohima, dated 
October 8, 1975, for their failure to display the 
stock position and prices of essential commo- 
dities and selling the items on higher rates. 
No specific details in support of these allega- 
tions were given in the grounds of detention. 
On October 13, 1975, the DC, Kohima, was 
directed by the Home Department to send 
grounds of detention which he had not for- 
warded till then. He wrote to the Home 
Department on October 18, 1975, stating 
that these persons were detained with the 
object of creating a deterrent effect on the 
traders and businessmen dealing in essential 
commodities. He further said that after 
realising that their continued detention was 
no longer necessary, he had revoked the 
detention orders and had ordered action 
under normal law. 

(iv) Shri Jhuman Lai Sarowji and his two sons, 
Shri Lakshmi Narain and Shri Lalit Kumar 
of M/s. Sarowji Hardware Stores, Dimapur 
were detained under the orders of DC, 
Kohima, dated September 1, 1975, on the 
ground that they had allegedly cheated the 
Government of Nagaland during February, 
1972, by not depositing ., the Central Sales 
Tax and Nagaland Frontier Tax amounting 
to Rs. 91,500. It was mentioned that these 
persons were habitual evaders of payment of 
Government dues without specifying any 
other instance except the one mentioned 
above. 



File shows that the DC, Kohima, re- 
voked the detention orders in respect of 
Shri Lalit Kumar and Shri Lakshmi Narain 
on September 5, 1975, on the ground that 
further inquiries had revealed that Shri 
. Lalit Kumar was a minor and his guardian 
Shri Lakshmi Narain had not "signed any- 
where in the course of any transaction". 

The State Government reviewed the 
case on September 13, 1975, in the 
Review Committee meeting and it was 
recorded that "evasion of sales-tax cannot 
amount to a prejudicial act. It will also not 
come under the category of Maintenance of 
Supplies & Services Essential to the Commu- 
nity". In accordance with the recommen- 
dations of the Review Committee, the deten- 
tion of Shri Jhuman Lai was not confirmed. 

19.240 A State level Review Committee with 
Chief Secretary as Chairman and Commissioner, 
Nagaland, and Secretary, Law, as members, used to 
meet for considering the confirmation and for 
monthly review of MIS A cases. Detention order 
issued by the District Magistrates were confirmed on 
the recommendations of this Committee. It has been 
reported by the State Government that 7 cases of 
detention ordered by DC, Kohima, were not confirmed 
by the Government. In as many as 45 cases, since 
the DC had revoked the order within 15 days of 
detention and the persons concerned had been 
released, the cases were not referred to the State 
Government everi for confirmation. 

19.241 Most of the detenus whose detentions were 
confirmed by the State Government in the first 
instance, remained under detention until the emer- 
gency was lifted. In a very few cases, detenus were 
released as a result .of four-monthly reviews. Only 
one political detenu, named Shri Azu Newmai, 
ex-Deputy Minister. UDF, detained on April 5, 1976, 
was released on My '19, 1976, as a result of review 
Of his case. One Shri Refiquaddin, an economic 
.offender, and Shri Lhouthia Angami, an anti-social 
element, were ' released on February 4, 1977, as a 
result of review of their cases in December, 1976. 
The rest of the detenus were released only after the 
revocation of the emergency. 

19.242 In reply to the questionnaire on 'Treat- 
ment in Jails 1 , the State Government has stated that 
no detenu was refused parole sought on the ground 
of death in family or marriage of a dependant or 
serious illness of a family ! member. At the time of 
the scrutiny of the MISAj cases, the officer of the 
Commission did not come across in the files any 
application for parole from the detenus. Under the 
circumstances, it has not been possible to say whether 
or not parole applications were received and, if so, 
how they were dealt with. . 

ORISSA 

19.243 According to the information furnished 
by the Government of Orissa, the number of persons 



408 


(un- 


der 


Sec- 


tion 


16A 


of 


the 


Act) 




3 




762 





arrested/detained under various Emergency Laws 
was as under > — - 

MISA 



COFEPOSA 
DISIR . 



19.244 Categorywise break-up of persons detai- 
ned under the MISA is as under :— 

(i) Opposition Parties . . ,141 

(ii) Banned Organisations . .112 

(iii) Anti-social elements and criminals 155 

TheBLD and the RSS topped the list of Opposition 
parties and banned organisations, with 55 and 57 
detentions, respectively. Of the arrests under DISIR 
50 were for alleged economic offences and 279 for 
alleged anti-social activities. 

19.245 The following instructions were issued by 
the State Government on June 26, 1975 regarding 
detentions under MISA : — 

"Some leading agitators may have to be taken 
j nto preventive custody. Special Branch is 
preparing the district-wise list of such persons 
and the list will be sent to the District SP 
with instructions regarding timings of action. 
These persons should be detained under MISA 
keeping in view the objective of prevention of 
violent activities." 

In their reply to the Commission's questionnaire on 
the subject, the State Government have revealed that 
after consultations at the Government level, a list 
of 13 persons required to be detained was prepared 
on June 30, 1975. The State Government have further 
mentioned in their reply :— 

"Apart from the lists mentioned above, the 
Special [Branch prepared a list of persons to 
be detained from time to time on the basis of 
instructions communicated in the State 
Government's Secret message No. 2638f37)/C 
dated 26-6-1975. Cases- of persons whose 
detention was considered necessary by the 
Special Branch were referred to the District 
Superintendents of Police with information 
relating to such persons as was available with 
the Special Branch, for taking up the question 
of their detentions with the concerned autho- 
rities." 

19.246 State Government in their reply to the 
questionnaire on detentions have informed as below:— 

"Instructions were issued to all District 
Magistrates and other concerned authorities 
on 22-7-1975 to the effect that the powers 
of detention under MISA should be exercised 



98 



with due care and circumspection and deten- 
tion should not be resorted on flimsy, vague, 
non-existent of irrelevant grounds or on out- 
dated information. These instructions further 
envisaged that while each proposal for deten- 
tion should be scrutinised on merits, 'in the 
prevailing circumstances the MISA could be 
liberally used for detention of blackmarke- 
teers, hoarders, etc., and activists of organisa- 
tions banned under the Rule 33 of the D1R. 
Even in such cases of aforesaid instructions 
suggested a selective approach. 

The Additional Chief Secretary to the 
Government issued another circular to all 
District Magistrates explaining the special 
responsibility that has been cast on the ad- 
ministration by the proclamation of emer- 
gency. The circular also cautioned against 
any temptation to exploit the emergency situa- 
tion for one's personal gain or to settle old 
scores or to intimidate or blackmail the 
unwary or the innocent. It further emphasised 
that the Government will not hesitate to meet 
out exemplary punishment to the erring 
officials." . 

19.247 The State Government has further infor- 
med that in February, 1974, instructions were issued ' 
directing the District Magistrates to informally 
consult the Divisional Commissioner before making 
an order of detention under the MISA and in excep- 
tional cases where order was required to be passed 
immediately, the District Magistrate should forward 
copies of all concerning papers to the Commissioner. 
Even though this circular was issued prior to the 
declaration of emergency, arrangements envisaged in 
the circular remained in force during the emergency 
u- r T S ? e eme . r S eilc y- there were only 2 cases in 
which the Divisional Commissioner did not recom- 
mend the approval of the detention orders. The 
scrutiny or files also revealed that in many cases the 
report of the Divisional Comimissioner did not reach 
the State Government before the detention orders 
were confirmed. 

19.248 Orissa was one of the few States where a" 
thorough scrutiny of the grounds of detention and of 
the orders passed by District Magistrate was carried 
out in the Home Department, before submitting 
. the file to the Chief Minister for final orders. Legal 
and procedural flaws as well as inadequacy or irre- 
levance of the grounds of detention was duly pointed 
out but almost invariably at the end of the scrutiny 
note, a recommendation was made to confirm the 
detention on administrative grounds or grounds of 
expediency and detention order was confirmed by the 
Chiet Minister. In many cases, the scrutiny note 
clearly pointed out that the grounds of detention 
would not stand legal scrutiny and no valid detention 
order can be based on such grounds. Yet in the end 
confirmation of the order was recommended and 
detentions were confirmed. The practice of revoking 
detention orders passed by the District Magistrate 
which were found to suffer from serious legal flaws 
and issuing fresh detention orders in place of the 
initial, orders was not followed in this State. 



**MCMK=«a£SSfifi!2Sj&ia£3£&H v*" "■ 



^j ^ms^^m^ ^ ^ms^^^^ & ^ ^^S^^^ ^ 



99 



19.249 In the case of Shri Abir Padhi, District 
Behrampur, detained on July 3, 1975, on the grounds 
■ of instigating Class IV employees to agitate against 
the Government, collecting funds for JP movement 
m March 1975 and publishing false news through his 
newspaper 'Praja Tantra' of which he was a corres- 
pondent, the Home Department, noted as below :— 

"It will not be possible to sustain a legal order 
of detention on the basis of grounds furnished 
by the DM. Many of the grounds are vague 
and some of these are also irrelevant... 
nonetheless, the grounds of detention show 
that the detenu has considerable agitational 

potential and mischief value in view of 

this, it may be expedient to approve the order 
of detention." 

His detention was confirmed. 

, 19.250 In the case of Shri Madan Mohan Sahu 
and Shri Binod Mohanty, both of District Cuttack, 
detained on the ground of participating in Shri 
Jayaprakash Narayan's programme and meetings in 
1974, the Home Department pointed out that some 
, of .the grounds did not indicate any prejudicial 
'activity and cannot be utilized for purposes of deten- 
tion. Grounds were not specific and precise to justify 
detention. But confirmation was recommended on 
the grounds of expediency. The detention was 
confirmed. In the case of Shri Ram Krishan Patnaik 
of District Ganjam, detained on July 10, 1975, the 
grounds mentioned that he was a militant leader of 
the BLD and was criticising the levy policy in public 
.meetings. . In this case, the DM failed to send his 
report to the State Government as required under 
Section 3(3) of the MIS A. The Home Department 
-noted : — 

"No valid detention can be made on the basis 
of allegations mentioned in the grounds. 
However, the grounds do indicate that the 
detenu has considerable agitational potential 
and is likely to act in pursuance of party 
directives." 

Shri Satish Kumar Dhawan of District Cuttack was 
detained on March 6, 1976 on the grounds that he was 
an authorised wholesale dealer in Cement and MS 
rods. On checking of his stock, shortage of material 
was detected. In this case, the District Magistrate 
did not send to -the State Government the copy of 
detention order and declaration under Section 16A(3) 
issued by him and merely intimated them of the fact 
of detention of Shri Dhawan. The Home Department 
noted :— 

"DM has not forwarded copy of detention 
order; as such it is not possible to know the 
provisions of MTSA under which he has been 
detained. Presumably, he has been detained 
under Section 3(l)(a)(3). Since the order 
was made apparently on July 10, 1975, the 
Government have to consider the approval 
today and it would not be possible to wait 
for the wanting document," 

His detention was confirmed. 



19.251 Majority of persons detained due to their 
political affiliations and activities belonged to the 
BLD. A number of Sarvodaya workers and those 
connected with the Lok Sangharsh Samiti movement 
of Shri Jayaprakash ATarayan in 1974 were also de- 
tained. The grounds given in such cases mostly related 
to their participation in meetings, agitations, etc., 
during the year 1974 and in early months of 1975. 
But in very few cases, any definite activity near-about 
or after the proclamation of emergency was mentioned. 
In some cases, one or two secret -meetings were 
mentioned in the grounds, in which the detenu was 
alleged to have participated arid it was mentioned' 
that in such meetings it was decided to oppose the 
emergency and launch an agitation. But very often, 
no details of the actual time and place Of such meet- 
ings were given in the grounds. (Cases of S/Shri 
Subhash Chandra Joshi and Manmohan Chaudhary, 
both of District Cuttack). 

19.252 31 students were detained under MISA 
during emergency. In majority of cases, the grounds 
mentioned their association with the JP movement 
in 1974. A few were detained simply on grounds 
of being rowdy and having indulged in acts of indis- 
cipline in the educational institutions during the past 
two or three years. 

19.253 As regards banned organisations also, a 
piocedure identical with the one adopted for detain- 
ing persons with political affiliation was followed. 
In a majority of cases, the grounds mentioned that 
the detenu was associated with the banned organisa- 
tion and had participated in one or two secret meet- 
ings in which emergency was opposed. Shri Sitaram 
Das Babaji, District Ganjam, was detained on 
August 7, 1975. The grounds of detention only men- 
tioned that he was connected with the RSS. He 
had earlier been arrested under the DISIR and was in 
jail. The Home Department noted in his case that as 
he was already in jail, this point will have to be ans- 
wered in case of judicial query but as he is an active 
member of RSS, his detention may be confirmed. 
S/Shri Bhima Behra, Chandrakant Harkare and 
Raghunath, all of District Phulbani, were detained on 
the grounds that they belonged to the RSS. In each 1 
case, only one single incident was cited in which the 
detenu was found making propaganda against the 
emergency and inciting people to Oppose the 
Government, at a bus stand, on a particular day. 

19.254 Like other States, MISA was also used 
here to detain criminals involved in petty offences 
like assault, street brawls, "eve-teasing", etc. In 
some cases, grounds revealed only one incident of such 
activity and mostly no conviction for any offeree was 
shown. Shri Mungeli Aggarwal, District Bplajngir, 
was detained on August 23, 1975, on the basis^of a 
single incident of illegally transporting 10 quintals of 
rice on August 17, 1975. S/Shri Kulamoni Paridha 
and Sahdev Naik, President and General Secretary, 
respectively, of Ichhapur Service Cooperative Society, 
were detained on September 4, \9t5 on the ground 
of serious irregularities in the accounts of Society 
and recovery of adulterated fertilizers from the 



100 



Society godown. In their cases, the Home Department 
noted :— 

"There is no proof that the stock was meant 
for sale. During the search, the stock-book 
should have been verified to find out what 
stock was meant for sale. In the absence of 
such an evidence, the grounds are weak and 
may not stand the test of judicial scrutiny. 
But in view of the prima facie evidence that 
the stock was for sale, the detention should 
be confirmed." 

19.255 The State Government constituted two 
separate Review Committees for periodical review 
of detention cases. The Review Committee constitu- 
ted for reviewing the cases of persons detained in 
connection with the maintenance of public order and 
security of State comprised the following members :— 

. (i) Additional Chief Secretary/Chief Secretary — 

in charge of Home Department 
(ii) Home Secretary 
(iii) IG Police 
(iv) DIG (Intelligence) 

19.256 Another Review Committee was consti- 
tuted for dealing with cases of detention in connection 
with the maintenance of essential supplies and ser- 
vices. t In this Committee, Secretary, Food & Civil 
Supplies Department and DIG (Vigilance) were also 
associated as members. 

19.257 The recommendations of these Review 
Committees regarding the continuation or revocation 
of detention orders were put up before the Chief 
Minister for final orders. It was noticed that in a 
majority of cases, the Chief Minister accepted the 
recommendations of the Review Committees. 

19.258 In reply to the Commission's questionnaire 
on detentions, State Government have mentioned :— 

"The State Government did not. approve 44 
detention orders made by different detaining 
authorities under MISA. Of these, reason for 
non-approval in 8 cases was that the reference 
to the Government for approval of detention 
orders and confirmation of declaration under 
Section 16A(3) of MISA was received after 
expiry of the statutory period within which the 
State Government is required to consider the 
question of approval or confirmation. Of these 
'• 8 persons, 7 persons were subsequently re-de- 
tained on the basis of fresh detention orders," 

19.259 AH applications for parole were submitted 
to the Chief Minister for orders. On receipt of ap- 
plication for grant of parole from the detenus or 
their relatives, the opinion of concerned District 
Magistrate and Intelligence Branch were called for. 
This resulted in delay in some cases. In the case of Shri 
Dhanmal Jain, District Balasore, parole was requested 
for attending the last rites of his uncle who had died 
on April^ 16, 1976. After calling for the report of 
DM, which was favourable, the case was put up 



before the CM on April 21 , 1976. On April 26, 1976. 
the Chief Minister returned the file with the remarks 
"that since his uncle had died on 16th, what rites could 
be performed now" ? Home Department again 
recommended that parole should be granted to the 
detenu for the purpose of consoling his relatives. 
This was approved by the Chief Minister on May 3, 
1976. Thus, parole was granted 15 days after the death 
of a near relative. In the case of Shri Gurcharan Das , 
District Cuttack, parole 1 was requested on March 12, 
1976, on the ground that the detenu's aged father was 
ill and his mother had fractured her leg due to a fall. 
DIG (Int) reported that the facts of illness of father 
and fracture of mother were both true and recommen- 
ded grant of parole, but- the Chief Minister ordered 
that the issue must be considered after a fortnight. 
Later, the DIG was asked to verify whether there were ' 
other members in the family, able to look after the 
parents of the detenu. On June 1, 1976, the Home 
Department put up a note that now there was no ur- 
gent need for granting parole as the detenu's mother 
is the only sick person. 



PUNJAB 

19.260 According to the information supplied by 
the Government of Punjab, the figures of arrests 
and detentions in Punjab during the period of 



en>:gea;y ar;: — 
MISA 

COFEPOSA 
DISIR 



440 

• : V V . - 73 

■ . . 2,423 

19.261 The scrutiny of MISA files of Punjab has 
revealed that 438 persons were actually detained 
and two had remained absconders. 332 of these 
were detained under normal provisions of MISA 
This included 321 foreigners (276 Pak nationals and 
45 Bangladesh nationals) and 5 Indian nationals de- 
tained for the reasons of security of State. The 
foreigners were detained with a view to making ar- 
rangements for their expulsion from India. The 
State Government rejected 7 cases and two were re- 
jected by the Advisory Board. 323 detentions were 
upheld by the Advisory Board. 

. 19.262 106 persons were .detained in the context 

of the emergency by invoking Section 16A of the 

MISA. The category wise break-up of these cases 
is given below: — 



0") Members or Associa- 
tes of Banned Organi- 
sations 

(ii) Members or Associa- 
tes of Political Parties 



16(CPTML— 13. 
Anand Marg— 3) 

33 (BJS— 14. Socia- 
list Party— 6. 
Congress (R)— 2 
Akali— 9, 
Others— 2). 

57 

The third category includes alleged spies, smugglers 
gamblers, rowdies and other anti-social elements'. 



(iii) Others 



101 



19.263 h has been intimated by the State Govem- 
men't that the intimation about the impending impo- 
sition of emergency was -received by the then Chief 
Minister of Punjab on. the night of June 25, 197-5, and 
a meeting was held at his residence at about midnight 
to discuss the situation. Telephonic instructions 
were issued by the Inspector General of Police to all 
District Superintendents of Police during the night 
of June 25/26, 1975, directing them to effect preventive 
arrests and prevent formation of any crowds or pro- 
cessions likely to lead to violence or other prejudicial 
activities, j These instructions were confirmed later 
by a TP message on June 26, 1975. It has bean re- 
ported by the State Government that 91 persons were 
arrested on June 26, 1975, and 416 during the period 
from June 27. to June 30, 1975 under the preventive 
provision's of IPC, Cr. PC and DISIR, etc. No 
detentions under MIS A were made till July 5, 1975. 

19.264 Bhartiya Jan Sangh among the political 
parties and the C.PIML among the banned parties 
appear to have faced the brunt of MISA in Punjab. 
There were no public servants, school/university 
teachers, or women among the detenus. Six students 
were detained on account of theif alleged association 
with the CPIML. There was one journalist named 
Shri Jagat Narayan of Jullundur, an ex- Minister, 
among the detenus. Scrutiny has revealed that most 
of. the political detenus ' were arrested first under 
the preventive sections of Cr. PC or DISIR and then 
detained under MISA. 

19.265 Detention of S/Shri Som Dutt and Bachan 
Singh Pakhon,. both of Congress, is noteworthy. 
They were detained under the orders of District 
Magistrate, Sangrur, issued on December 26, 1975. 
Shri Som Dutt was arrested on February 15, 1976. 
and Shri Bachan Singh. on February 17, 1976. It 
was mentioned in the grounds of detention that they 
were arrested under Rule -3.6(43) DISIR on November 
25, 1 975, allegedly for addressing a public meeting near 

. new cinema, Barnala, where they had allegedly 
criticised the Government and exhorted the audience 
to resort to violent methods to overthrow the Govern- 
ment. They were released on bail in this case on- 
December 9, 1975. ft was further mentioned in the 
grounds of detention that as per the report of Sub- 
Inspector Gurdayal Singh, Shri Bachan Singh -held 
a secret meeting of his supporters on December 24, 

1975, and Shri Som Dutt on December 26, 1975, 
where they had criticised the Government for imposing 
emergency in the country. The State Government 
confirmed both the detention orders on January 9, 

1976. Though the detention orders were issued on 
December 26, 1975, they were actually arrested only 
on February 15 and 17, 1976. Whether Or not the 
individual against whom the detention order is 
passed is actually detained, the law requires the 
confirmation of the order by ,the State Government 
within a period of 15 days from the actual date of issue 
of the detention order. They sent a petition to the 
Prime Minister alleging that they were detained -at the 
instance of Shri Onkar Chand, General Secretary of 
the Punjab Pradesh. Congress Committee and the 
Government of- India wrote to Punjab Government 
on February 10, 1976, calling for their comments. 
The State Government replied on May 12, 1976, 

S/25 HA /7 8— 14 



justifying the detention of these persons. File shows 
that Shri Om Mehta, the then MMHA, wrote demi- 
officially to Giani Zail Singh on July 31, 1976, that;— 

"A petition regarding the detention of Shri 
Som Dutt Sharma, member, Punjab Pradesh 
Congrcs Committee and Secretary, Mandal 
Congress Committee, Barnala and Shri 
Bachan Singh Pakhon, ex-MLA, was received 
by me which was sent for a report to the 
Government of Punjab. The report received 
from your Home Secretary reveals that 
S/Shri Som Dutt and Bachan Singh were 
arrested under MISA on 15th and 17th of 
of February, 1976, respectively. The only 
overt act reported against them immediately 
prior to their arrests is the meetings held at 
their residence between 24th to 26th December, 
1975, wherein they are reported to have criti- 
, cised the Government for suspension of civil 
liberties. As both of them are members of 
the Congress Committee and they have 
no political- affiliation, it appears doubtful 
that they would-be holding meetings at their 
residences to ' criticise the Government. 
According to information available in the 
Ministry, both the detenus are opposed to 
'Shri Onkar Chand, General Secretary of the 
Punjab Pradesh Committee and they have 
threatened to distribute pamphlets in the 
AICC session to demand for his ^ removal 
if no action was taken against him.. It is 
. reported that on the same day, i.e., 25th 
November,. 1975, both S/Shri. Sharma and 
Pakhon were arrested under DISIR for al- 
leged criticism of the emergency in the public 
meeting before a cinema hall at Barnala. 
According to our information, they were 
falsely implicated in this case because of their 
opposition to Shri Onakar Chand. 

In view of the above, it appears that 
there has been a misuse of emergency powers. 
We would, therefore, advise you to revoke 
the detention orders in respect of both these 
detenus. I shall be grateful if you will kindly 
look into ' the matter personally and take 
, deterrent action against those guilty of misuse 
of emergency powers." 

The cases were discussed in a special review held on 
August 16, 1976, and orders were revoked on August 
17, 1976. DIG, Patiala was asked to look into the 
matter and take action against SP, Sangrur. It is 
seen from the file of Shri Som Dutt that DIG, Patiala 
wrote to the. Home Secretary on August 12, 1977, 
in this connection and quoted the following remarks 
of his predecessor recorded on July 25, 1977: — 

"I have discussed this case with DIG/CID 
on 20-7-77. No action will be taken." 

19.266 All the detention orders issued under 
Section 16A were required to be reviewed by the 
State Government for the" purpose of confirmation . 
within 1 5 days. Cases were processed in the office 
of the DIG/CID. Scrutiny has revealed that the 
cases were got legally scrutinised first by the Law 



102 



Officer attached with the DIG/CID and then by the 
Deputy Director, Prosecution and Litigation. It 
has been reported by the State Government that 46 
detention orders out of a total of 108 issued by the 
various District Magistrates under Section 16A 
were not confirmed by the State Government. The 
following illustrations will reveal the nature, scope 
and effectiveness of the scrutiny carried out at the 
level of the State Government:— 

(i) Sh/i Asholc Kumar, son of Shr Lakshman 
. Das was detained under the orders of District 
Magistrate, Sangrur, passed on February 39, 
1976. It was mentioned in the grounds of 
detention that Shri Ashok Kumar was arrested 
in a case under Rule 36/43 DISIR for making 
anti-Government utterances on October 14, 
1975. He was allegedly found inciting the 
public against the Government on January 4, 
1976 and January 17, 1976. The case was 
examined in the Home Department and Shri 
Mela Ram Midha, Deputy Director (Prose- 
cution & Litigation) recorded the following 
note on February 27, 1976:— 

"The detenu has been inciting the 
public against emergency and the present 
■ ... Government. He is not shown to be 
belonging to any political party. The 
aforesaid activities could not in them* 
selves be sufficient to show that his acti- 
vities were prejudicial to the mainte- 
nance of public order or security of State. 
No doubt in the report it is stated that. 
on 17-1-76 he had exhorted the gathering 
to resort to violence to overthrow the 
present Government, but he being not 
a member of any Party, hit; exhortation 
could have no effect. Besides from the 
note of Additional I.G., it is evident that 
the detenu is an opium smuggler and the 
correctness of the acts attributed to him 
is doubtful. Under these circumstances, 
it is not a fit case where the State Govern- 
ment may confirm the declaration made 
by the DM, Sangrur," 

The DM was informed on March 1, 1976, 

that the declaration issued by him in this 

case was not confirmed by the State 
Government. .. 

(ii) Shri Balwant Smgh Ramuwalia, son of 
Shn Karnail Singh was detained under the 
orders of District Magistrate, Faridkot, on 
September 7, 1976. The grounds of deten- 
tion referred to one incident of August 1 
1975r-one of August 2, 1975 and one of 
August, 6 1 975 relating to the detenu's 
criticism of the Government and the 20- 
pomt economic programme. Shri Mela Ram 
Midha, Deputy Director (Prosecution & 
LitigatiqnJ recorded the following note on 
September 21, 1976:— 

'The perusal of the grounds of detention 
would show that the prejudicial activity 
relates. to the period 1-8-75 to 6-8-75 



No further activity has come to light 
against this detenu. A period of more 
than one year has elapsed since the last 
detected activity, the same are Of Course 
remote in time, BcsldeBi the ptfUJfftl 
of the grounds far detention would re- 
veal that the detenu has only been criti- 
cisinj* the promulgation of emergency* 
banning of certain political parties and 
he described the Prime Minister as 
corrupt and that the promulgated 
emergency Only to save hef position as 
Prime Minister. He further Criticised 
the arrest of certaih political leader^ 
There is, however, nothing in, the grounds' 
to show that He £¥er incited people t6 
take thfc law into their own hands and to 
Change the present duly elected Govern- 
ment by force. No doubt On August 1, 
1975, he remarked — -"We are breaking 
the Emergency", there is nothing to 
show that it was intended to be broken 
by use of force. Again on 1-8-75, he 

incited people to Overthrow the Govern- 
ment but there Is no incitement to the 
Use of force Or td create cdriditions where 
the 1 public order may be jeopardised. 
The grounds are, therefore, not relevant 
to the object to be achieved. These 
activities are not such as could be termed 
to be prejudicial to the maintenance of 
public order. Under these circums- 
tances, the detention could not be justified 
and as such it is not a fit case in which 
the State Government may confirm the 
declaration." 

The DM was informed on September 22, 1976, 
that the detention order issued by him was 
not confirmed. 

(///) District Magistrate, Bhatinda, issued .on 
. September 19, 1975, detention orders in res- 
pect of 10 persons described as opium smug- 
glers in the records. The grounds of detention 
only referred to 24 meetings where these 
persons were alleged to have made anti- 
Government utterances. The cases were 
examined in the Home Department. Shri 
Mela Ram Midha, Deputy Director (Prose- 
cution & Litigation) recorded on September 
30, 1975, that:— 

"In all these 10 cases, it is alleged that 
meeting was held in which besides the 
detenu some other persons also parti- 
cipated and the detenus exhorted them 
to revolt against the Government, 
gherao the Ministers, to collect funds 
to support the agitation and if the funds 
were not voluntarily provided, the same 
should be forcibly collected. It is 
further mentioned that on the next day 
of the meeting, the detenu along with 
others asked shopkeepers to close the 
shops and forced them to provide funds 
At that time, it is alleged that the detenu 
and his companions wcYe holding 



"rYttmaa^FftajftTfiiw^jfeBTffiffe'jP 



■103 



knives whereon Rchriwalas and the vege- 
table sellers ran hither and thither and 
the detenu and his companions were 
brandishing knives and lathis, etc. These 
allegations, if proved, indicate the com- 
mission of a criminal cognisable offence 
in which the case should have been 
registered by the police. The record 
does not show if any such case was 
registered. The omission on the part 
of the police to register the case creates 
doubts about the correctness of these 
allegations. Besides, there is absolutely 
no material to show that the detenus 
indulged in other prejudicial activities. 
At any rate, the detenus are not shown to 
be persons of such a stature that their 
instigations could be effective with the 
people in general. In these circums- 
tances, these are not fit cases in which 
the extraordinary .amended provisions 
of MISA, 1971 should have been availed 
of by making a declaration under Section 
16A of the said Act. These are, therefore, 
not fit cases in which the State 
Government may confirm the declaration 
under Section 16A." 

The orders were not confirmed and the DM 
was informed accordingly on October 1, 
1975. 

(iv) Shri Bhagwan Das son of Shri Jiwa Ram 
Agarwal, an alleged leader of Darra Satta 
gamblers, was detained under the orders of 
District Magistrate, Patiala, issued on July 
, 15, 1976,. _ it. was -mentioned in the grounds 
of detention that his activities"- Were "curbed" 
by the police but... with a view to revive the 
same, he along with other bad characters 
;had taken a ''decision to organise thecampaign 
to detract the armed forces and policemen 
away from their duties and to overthrow the 
present Government." Shri Mela Ram 
Midha, Deputy Director (Prosecution' rand 
Litigation), recorded on August 2, 1976, 
that:— ; 

"He is not a political leader and is not 
shown to be a person having such an • 
influence so as to detract the police 
from their normal duties. He is also not 
shown to be so desperate that his acti- 
vities may prejudice the security of State 
or maintenance of public order. Darra 
Satta is not relevant under the provi- 
sions of MISA. It is, therefore, not 
a fit case for detention and the question 
of detention being necessary for effective- 
ly dealing with the Emergency does not 
arise. It is, therefore, not a fit case 
. where the State Government may con- 
firm in declaration made by the DM, 
Patiala." 

Shri J. S. Bawa, the Additional IG/CID re- 
corded on July 30, 1976 that:— 

"Strictly speaking, the activities invol- 
ving Darra Satta do not per se come 



within the purview of MISA. Further- 
more, it is also to be considered if persons 
indulging in such activities are to be 
detained by issuing declaration under 
MISA. It is not recommended that the 
declaration in this case may be approved 
by the State Government. The correct 
position will be pointed out to DM, 
Patiala who will also be asked to deal 
stringently with the Darra Satta gamblers 
in accordance with the appropriate 
provisions of law." 

The order was, therefore, not confirmed by 
the State Government. 

19.267 Four-monthly reviews of the MISA cases 
were held in the Home Department. Scrutiny has 
revealed that the recommendations of the detaining 
authority were obtained in each case and the cases 
were processed in the office of the DIG/CID. It has 
been reported by the State Government that a special 
review of MISA cases was held on August 16, 1976, 
by a committee consisting of the Home Secretary 
Additional IG/CID, Deputy Secretary (Home) 
and SP, Security, CID. It was decided to. release 
S/Shri Som Dutt and Bachan Singh Pakhon as ad- 
vised by the Central Government. Five more detenus 
were also considered for release after reviewing their 
cases in the light of the assurances given by them for 
their good behaviour. The following cases are note- 
worthy : — 

(i) Shri Om Prakash Goyal of BJS was detained 
on July 18, 1975, under the orders of District 
Magistrate, Faridkot. His case was reviewed 
■ ■■'■v on August 16, 1976; and the DM, Faridkot 
was asked to make enquiries and send report 
regarding the withdrawal of Shri Goyal from 
the prejudicial activities. DM forwarded 
a petition, dated October 18, 1976, from Shri 
Om Prakash Goyal and confirmed that there 
was change in the thinking of Shri Goyal. 
Shri Goyal had in his petition stated that he 
had dissociated himself from the BJS and had 
full faith in the* 20-point programme of the 
Prime Minister and the 5-point programme of 
the "Lok Neta Sanjay Gandhi". It was 
decided to release Shri Om Prakash Goyal and 
Government of India was requested on 
November 22, 1976. to accord approval 
for the same. The Government of India 
replied on February 1, T977, advising the 
State Government to review the case in the 
light of the fresh instructions issued in 
January, 1977, regarding the release of politi- 
cal detenus. Detention order in ' respect 
of Shri Goyal was revoked oft February 4, 
1977. 

(u) Shri Panna Lai of BJS was detained on 
February 27, 1976, under the orders of District 
Magistrate, Gurdaspur. He sent a petition 
on October 16, 1976, affirming his dissociation 
from the BJS and support to the Economic 
Programme launched by Smt. Indira Gandhi. 
He said that "I realise that Mrs. Indira 
Gandhi is the leader the country needs at this 



M 



hour and there is no other party except the 
Congress under her leadership who could 
give guidance to the country." The Chief 
Minister endorsed on this petition on 
October T9, 1976, that the inhabitants of the 
area had assured him regarding the good 
conduct of the applicant. The Government 

?Jw* nd ' a Was 3 N uested otl December 29, 
1976, to accord; approval for the release of 
Shri Panna Lai. No reply was received 
till January 14, 1977, when a reminder was 
sent. The orders were revoked on January 
26 1977, after reviewing the case in the 
light of the fresh instructions from the 
Government of India for the release of politi- 
cal detenus. 

19.268 It has been reported by the State Govern- 
ment that the policy regarding the grant of parole 
to the MISA detenus was evolved in January 1976 
while dealing with the case of Shri Lai Chand 
Sabnarwal who had applied for parole on the ground 
of marriage of his' nephew. The State Government 
decided to consider the release of MISA detenus on 
parole only in the following cases :— 

(i) Marriage of detenu's son, daughter, real 
brother or real sister; 

(it) Death of detenu's father/mother, brother, 
sister, spouse, son, daughter, son-in-law' 
daughter-in-law. 

19:269 Scrutiny has revealed that application 
tor grant of parole on the ground of illness of the 
detenu or serious illness of a family member were also 
considered sympathetically. Some illustrations are 
given below: — 

(i) Shri Jagat Narayan of Jullundur, detained on 
October 27, 1975, was released on parole for 
three months on March 27, 1976 in view of 
his poor health. He remained' on parole 
till November 26, 1976. As he refused to 
give any undertaking for his good behaviour 
parole was not extended further and he re- 
ported at the jail on November 27 1976 
P e was again released on parole on December 
5, 1976, and remained on parole until his 
Jftention order w as revoked on December 
31, 1976.. 

(ii) Dr. BaldevPrakash, a BJS leader of Amritsar 
detained on September 2, 1975, was released 
on parole for 10 days on January 17 1976 
on the ground of illness of his wife. Parole 
was extended up to February 3 1976 He 
was released again on parole on March 2, 
1*76. and it was extended from time to time 
"IL 1 ! 1 th ? orde r was revoked on January 31, 

(iii) %T*\^? nR LaI of BJS detai «ed on February 
H' S Was reIeased on parole on October 
2.2., iy?6, on the ground of. illness of his 
mother. Parole was extended from time to 
A^nn remained on parole until January 
4, 1977, when the order was revoked. 



19.270 Scrutiny has revealed that in the case 
of one Shri Bikar Singh son of Shri Bichitar 
iingri ol District Faridkot, the State Government 
has deviated from their normal policy on parole. 
Miri Bikar Singh was detained on March 30 1976 
for his alleged association with the Naxalite's He 
sent an application on June 29, 1976, for grant of 
parole to enable him to attend the marriage of his 

k 1 ?^ ™/ £ A T 1St 9 ' 1976 ' This was confirmed 
by the DM handkot and DSP/CID, Faridkot also. 

™7^?r, that the Passing level in the office of 
JJiO/CID had recommended the case for grant of 
parole for 1 5 days in accordance with the policy of 
the Government to release MISA detenus on parole 
on the occasion of marriage of the detenu's son/ 
rl ■ e ^, 0r brother /sister. However, the request 
ot bnri Bikar Singh was rejected on the basis of the 
lollowmg noting recorded by the SP Security CID 
on July 30, 1976:— . ' 

''Possibility of Shri Bikar Singh's going un- 
derground is real and grave. It is, therefore, 
a fit case to deviate from the policy decision* 
Detenu's father, grandfather and three 
brothers are there to attend to this marriage 
Government may not, therefore, release 
Shn Bikar Singh on parole." 

RAJASTHAN 

19.271 According to information furnished by 
the Government of Rajasthan, the number of deten- 
tions ordered under MISA and other Preventive 
Laws during the period of emergency was as follows :— 



MISA 

COFEPOSA 

DISIR 



542 
1,352 



*u I?;™? T,le break " u P of detentions ordered under 
tne MISA is as below: — 



(i) Members or associates of Political 
Parties . ,_.... 

(ii) Members or associates of banned 
organisations 

(in) Anti-socials, criminals and others 



213 

154 
175 



Thus, persons detained on account of political acti- 
vities outnumbered those detained for involvement 
in criminal activities. Among the banned organisa- 
tions, the. largest number of detenus consisted of 
members and associates of the RSS (127) Amone 
members of political parties detained, the majority 
of detenus belonged to BJS(I13). 

19.273 According to the information given bv 
the State Government in reply to the Commission's 
questionnaire on detentions, in 8 cases, the declara- 
V??5,\ ssued by the District Magistrates under Section 
I6A(3) were not confirmed by the State Government 
However during the scrutiny of cases, it was revealed 
mat m. 16 other cases also, the .declarations issued by 
District Magistrates were not confirmed by the State '■ 



105 



Government. In these 16 cases, the, detention 
orders were pending execution and were revoked 
before the arrest took place. 

19.274 The detentions were ordered by the District 
Magistrates mostly on the report of the Superinten- 
dent of Police. The police sent a dossier in respect 
of the detenu detailing at length his political c, divides 
for the past several years. At the level of the Stale 
Government, all cases were put up before the Chief 
Minister for final orders of confirmation under Section 
16A(3). It was seen that no scrutiny of the grounds 
of detention was carried out by the Home Department. 
In almost every case the following note was put up by 
"the Deputy Secretary (Home): — 

"The District Magistrate has issued dec- 
laration in exercise of powers conferred under 
Section 16A(3) of the Maintenance of Internal 
Security Act, 1971. as amended by the Mainte- 
nance of Internal Security (Amendment) 
Ordinance, 1975, against detenu for effectively 
dealing with the emergency. The District 
Magistrate has also forwarded the grounds 
of detention and detention order, which- 
are available. From the grounds, it appears 
that detention is necessary for effectively 
dealing with the emergency. It is, therefore, 
proposed that the detention order and dec- 
laration, issued by the District Magistrate, 
may be confirmed under provision of Section 
1 6 A(3) of the said Act." 

Only the name of the detenu was inserted in this note 
in each Case. 

19.275 A few cases were noticed in which the dec- 
laration and detention order issued by the District 
Magistrate was received by the State Government 
after the expiry of the statutory period of 15 days and 
in such cases the detention orders were revoked by 
the State Government. In the case of Shri Gir Raj 
Kishore Sharma of Jaipur detained on August 18, 
1975, the papers reached the State Government, on 
September 5, 1975, i.e. after the expiry of the statutory 
period of 15 days as revealed, from the file of the 
Home Department. The State Government did not 
confirm the order of detention and the 'District 
Magistrate was informed accordingly On telephone. 
However, it is seen that the detention order revoked 

,by the District Magistrate bears the date ..1-9-75, i.e., 
■ within the statutory period of 15 days and 5 days 
before the State Government ordered revocation of 
the detention order. In a few cases in which the 
State Government did not confirm the order of 
detention, the District Magistrate issued fresh orders 
of detention and the detenu continued in jail (cases 
of S/Shri Rikhab Das of District Bundi and 
Virendra Bandhu of District Jaipur). In the case of 
Shri Virendra Bandhu, it was.seen that he was detained 
on July 5,. 1975, but the declaration under Section 
16A(3) was issued by the. District Magistrate after 
3 days, on July 8, 1975. The detenu filed a writ peti- 
tion in the High Court on July 30, 1975. In the Home 
Department, it was noted: — 

"He was detained on 5-7-75 while; the declara- 
tion was issued on 8-7-75 it should have 



been issued simultaneously. ... this defect 
would be fatal and his writ will be accepted." 

He was, therefore, released on August 16,' 1975, but 

was re-detained on August 18, 1975. 

1 9.276 No separate grounds of detention were sent 
by the Distric! Magistrate to the State Government 
only a' dossier received from the police was sent 
which was apparently treated as the grounds of de- 
tention. The dossiers were generally lengthy, con- 
taining details of the political activity of the detenu 
or the past 8 or 10 years. Most of these activities 
were the normal political activities of members of 
an Opposition party such as taking part in party 
meetings or demonstrations organised by the party, 
etc. In some cases, one or two similar activities of 
the year 1975 were also mentioned. In the case of 
Shri Nawal Raj Bachchani of Ajmer, detained on 
August 14, 19/5, the dossier contained reference to 
various meetings, proceedings, etc., organised by the 
BJS and RSS from 1971 in which the detenu was 
alleged to have participated. No activity showing a 
trend towards violence or, disruption was revealed. 
Last activity mentioned in the dossier was that he 
had proceeded to Delhi to; participate in the rally of 
Shri Jayaprakash Narayan on March 3, 1975. The 
case of Shri Prem Sukh of Ajmer is also similar. The 
activities mentioned in his dossier mostly related to 
organising RSS Shakhas in the previous years and 
last activity mentioned was of December 15, 1974. 
In a few cases, participation in a secret meeting in 
the last week of June 1975 was also mentioned ia 
the dossier. The grounds of detention mentioned in 
the case of Shri Sampat Lai Kachar, District Bikaner, 
detained on June 26, 1975, only mentioned that on 
June 17, 1975, he organised a bandh in Bikaner 
City to protest against shifting of bus stand from the 
railway station. On the same day, a' procession was 
taken out in which he made a speech against shifting 
the bus stand. 

19.277 In many cases of political leaders, grounds 
of. detention only mentioned in general terms that 
they h belonged to a particular Opposition party' and 
had advocated the pdlicy of Shri Jayaprakash 
Na'rayan, spread hatred against the Government and 
opposed the emergency. But no specific instance was 
cited to substantiate the general grounds. In the 
case of Shri Manak Chand Thakur of District Bundi, 
the grounds of detention mentioned were, that he 
was the President of District SSP, which was one 
of the Opposition parties determined to bring about 
chaos and disorder. The Opposition parties ha!d 
given a call to unleash the forces of disruption and 
create lawlessness. Shri Manak was an avowed critic 
of the Government and had taken part in anti- 
Government agitations. No specific instance- of his 
activities was mentioned in the grounds. 

19.278 37 students were also detained: under the 
MISA and in many cases, the grounds mentioned 
that they believed in the cult of Shri JayaprakaCsh 
Narayan » and propagated that, police or; .military 
should disobey such orders of the. Government which 
do. not suit their convenience. The grounds men- 
tioned in the case of Shri NathJu Singh, .a. student 



leader of Jaipur, were that he wa*s a student Iwder 
and had organised students, to mobilise the support 
for overthrowing the Government. He had advocated 
forcible removal of the Prime Minister by unconsti- 
tutional means and that he believed' in the cult of 
Shri Jayaprakash Natayan. No specific instance of 
any activity was mentioned in the grounds. 

\ 9 ' 2 l?r<?? Gove *nment servants were detained 
under MISA according to the information given by 
the State Government in reply to the Commission's 
questionnaire qn detentions. Most of them were 
detamed on account of their alleged association with 
the banned organisations. There were no detentions 
of Government servants on grounds of corruption. 

19.280 In the cases of criminals and anti-social 
elements, the police furnished a detailed report men- 
tioning the various offences in which the detenu was 
involved covering past 5—7 years. In many cases, 
no recent criminal activity was mentioned. Some 
persons were detained for indulging in smuggling of 
foodgrams. 53 persons were detained on account of 
alleged suspicious association with Pakistanis. 

19.281 Two kinds of reviews of MISA detention 
cases were undertaken by the State Government 
One was the four-monthly statutory review under 
Section 16A(4) and the other was administrative 
review in accordance with the instructions of Home 
Secretary, Government of India, issued vide his 
in^iSi IJ - 16 ° n /8175/S&P-D. II, dated October 
2 s - Z , ' wherem tn e State Governments were 
advised to constitute a Committee for periodical 
review of detention cases particularly of those de- 
tenus who had submitted representations against 
their detention. It was seen that in the statutory 
four-monthly review, the cases were directly put up 
by the Home Department to the Chief Minister for 
orders and Review Committee did not come into the 
picture. No report from the detaining authority or 
the Special Branch of Police appears to have been 
obtained before undertaking this four-monthly re- 
view. In most cases, the Deputy Secretary (Home) 
used to put up the following stereotyped note : — 

"There has been no substantial change in 
the state of Emergency. The release of 
the detenu is likely to prejudice the efforts 
of the Central Government and the State 
Government in bringing normalcy. There 
are no reasons to revoke the detention at 
present. Hence, it is necessary to keep this 
detenu under further detention in order 
to effectively dealing with the emergency." 

This was approved by the Chief Minister in almost 
all case? and orders for continuation of detention 
were issued. 

19.282 For the administrative review a Com- 
mittee, consisting of ,the Chief Secretary, Commis- 
sioner for Home Affairs, IG Police, DIG/CID and 
Joint Legal Remembrancer was constituted. Thii 
Committee mainly, dealt ijvith cases of detention in 
which representations had been received. Three re- 
views were Undertaken by this Committee during 



106 



the period of emergency. The first review was held 
on October 28, 1975 and 66 cases were recommen- 
ded to the Government of India for revocation of 
detention orders. Out of these, the Government 
of India approved the release of -61 detenus. Out 
of the 5 cases in which release was not agreed to 
by the Government of India, the case of Shri B S 
Saxena is noteworthy. He was 70 years of -a<*e-and 
was not keeping-fit. The -second review was held 
on February 23, 1976 in which 40 persons were 
recommended for release. The Government of India 
agreed to the release of 30 detenus. The third re- 
view took place on July 2, 1976 in which 47 detenus 
were recommended for release. Government of India 
agreed to the revocation of detention orders in cases 
of 23 detenus and granting of parole to 18 detenus 
It was also seen that in these reviews the main 
factors taken into account for recommending the; 
release were ':— 

(i) unconditional apology; 

(ii) expressing support to the 20-point profi- 
..,,; ram me of the Prime Minister; ' & 

(iii) severance ofiink with the partv or organi- 
sation; 

(iv) agitational potential; and 

(v) death or serious illness of a near relation. 

19.283 The powers of granting parole were exer- 
cised by the State Government. In each case the 
orders of the Chief Minister were- obtained. It' was 

\!r??A that ° Ut ° f 542 P ersons detained under the 
MISA, as many as 258 persons were granted parole 
Parole was granted to detenus for attending weddings 
of brothers-in-law, nephews, nieces, etc demise of 
distant relations, 16 detenus were granted parole on 
the ground that they had expressed faith in the 
2Q-pomt programme. Out of 37 students detained 
under MISA, parole was granted to 28 on different 
occasions. However, in some cases, parole was 
refused even on such strong grounds as illness or 
death of mother or a near relative. Shri Piyush 
Chandra Jain of Udaipur applied for parole On 
July 21, 1975 and again on August 18, 1975 stating 
that he was not a member of any political party 
but parole was not granted. On September 7, 1976' ' 
the detenu's father applied for parole on the ground' 
that the detenu's mother was hospitalised at 
Udaipur. On September 21, 1975, his mother ex- 

'?? i'n ?f 0fe was *& in a PP lied for on September 
23, 1975, but it was not granted. Ultimately he 
was granted parole for 16 davs on August 6, 1976 
i.e., about a year after his mother;s death. 

19.284 Shri Onkar Nath Sharma, District Pali 
a labour, leader, applied for parole on March U 
1976 stating that his father was hospitalised at 
Jhansi. The District Magistrate recommended his 
request for parole but it was refused by the State 
Government on the ground that his father's condi- 
tion was not serious. The detenu again wrote that 
his father was seriously ill and his letter was for- 
warded by the District Magistrate. His faiher ulti- 
mately died on June 21, 1976. The detenu again 



i. AiuiKM uMii'jAtt'aiaifliajjaaagMjyaja 



107 



applied for parole on June 23, 1976. The State 
Government made enquiries from the District Magis- 
trate and the latter informed that as cremation and 
other rites had been performed, now there was no 
justification for releasing the detenu on parole. 

19.285 Shri Ram Bhajamal of District Jhalawar 
was a small tea-stall holder, detained on June 26, 
1975. His son expired on August 12, 1975,' but 
parole was not granted to him at that time. He was 
released on October 5,' 1975. 

19.286 Shri Sundar Dass of Bikaner was not 
granted parole even on the death of his father. 
When his father was seriously ill, he applied for 
parole, but he was granted permission to see his 
father for half an hour only. 

SIKKIM 

'19.287 It has been reported by the Government 
of Sikkim that provisions of GOFEPOSA and 

DISIR were not-used -at- all during the period of 

emergency. Four persons were, however, detained 
under MISA in October -1376. They were released 
on parole in February 1977 in pursuance of the in- 
structions issued by the Central Government and 
their detention orders Were subsequently revoked. 

TAMIL NADU 

19.288 The break-up of detentions ordered under 
MISA and other Preventive Laws in this State during 
■the period of emergency is as follows : — 



MISA 

COFEPOSA 

DISIR 



1 ,027 

285 

1.644 



19.289 Categorywise break-up of persons detained 
under the MISA is : — 



Political Opposition Parties 
Banned Organisations 

A nti -socials, Criminals arid others 



570 
139 
318 



19.290 Amongst the political detenus, the largest 
number (419) was of members and associates of 
the DMK while amongst the banned organisations, 
the CPTML topped the list with 72 detentions follow- 

. ed by RSS (47) . Thus detentions of porftical persons 
far outnumbered those detained on the ground of 
being criminals and anti-socials. 

19.291 A't the time of proclamation of emergency, 
Tamil Nadu was under the DMK rule and the DMK 
Government continued in office till the proclamation 
of President's Rule in the State on January 31, 1976. 
During this period barring the detention of one ■ 
AIDMK member, there were no detentions under 
MISA of persons belonging to political parties. MISA 
was used only against 45 persons belonging to the 
banned organisations and 212 anti-socials and cri- 
minals, The spate of detentions of political persons 



started immediately after the imposition of Presi- 
dent's rule in the .State and the erstwhile ruling 
party, i.e., the DMK, had to bear the brunt of MISA 
onslaught followed by Dravid Kazhagam (35). 

19.292 It was seen that District Magistrates used 
to send a general report in each case attaching a 
copy of the detention order and declaration issued 
under Section 16A(3) and grounds of detention 
to the State Government. In a number of cases, it 
was found that District Magistrates did not send any 
other document or material in addition to the above 
and even the copy of report of SP containing the 
grounds of detention was not sent to the State 
Government. The grounds of detention were briefly 
given by the District Magistrates themselves in which 
only a reference was made that a report had been 
received from the SP. (Cases of S/Shri P. Chittranar 
and T. Ramakrishnan of South Arcot; S/Shri Kulla 
Naicker and K. R. Ansar of Chinglepet) . In the 
State Home Department, the cases of detention re- 
ceived from the District Magistrates were processed 
with ah office note which only mentioned briefly the 
grounds given by the District Magistrate and the files 
were routed through the State Law Department. 
But it was seen that at the State level, no proper 
scrutiny of the grounds of detention appears to have 
been done either by the Home Department or the 
Law Department. AH the files were processed in a 
routine manner, with the Deputy Secretary (Law) 
merely putting his initials on the Home Department's 
note in most of the cases. Thus confirmation of. the 
declaration issued by the District Magistrate under 
Section 16A(3) was done in a routine and mecha- 
nical manner. This is further borne out by the fact 
that out of 1 ,027 cases of detention under MISA, 
the State Government did not confirm the declaration 
issued, by the District Magistrate only in one case. 
Thus in 'this State, the action taken under MISA 
by the District Magistrate was final and confirmation 
of the detention order by the State Government was, 
more or less, a formality. However, in . two cases 
of S, Mohd. Ghouse and S. Mohd. Hasan of South 
Arcot, detained on ^grounds of bootlegging, the 
Deputy Secretary (Law) put up a note saying "The 
materials furnished against these two detenus . arc 
vague. No conviction or specified instance is alleged 
against them." But their detentions were confirmed 
ignoring; this remark of the Law Department. 

19.293 In a majority of cafees relating. to members 
of political parties, particularly the DMK, the 
scrutinv of files revealed a set pattern concerning the 
grounds of detention. The grounds mentioned in 
these cases were vague arid in general terms with- 
out indicating any specific activity or fa'ct to deno'e 
any prejudicial activity on the part of the person 
concerned. It\was stated that the person was an 
active worker or associate or sympathiser of a 1 parti- 
cular party and had rowdy elements at his command. 
He wielded considerable influence in his: locality 
and after the fall of the DMK .Ministry he was 
active in contacting his party cadre and was likely 
to indulge in prejudicial jacts. But no specific acti- 
vity either present or past was mentioned- in the 
grounds to substantiate the general allegations, In 



2S23? TZ S ' lt was Mso me ntioned that he was 
critical of the emergency and the President's rule 
It was -interesting to note that in a majority of cases 
of persons belonging to-DMK ana DK the detenu 
was referred to as a rowdy and having rowdy de- 
ments at his command, even thdugh no incident or 
offence was cited against him in support of this 
Qssernonv 

below 2 -— A feW lUustrative samples are set out 

Shri Sanjivi Rcddy, District Chinglepcr, 
was detained on July 22, 1976. Grounds 

J?x?£° m his case were that he was a 
DMK sympathiser and an active associate 
of an cx-MLA. He was a rowdy element 
wielding considerable influence amonjr 
rowdies. After the fall of DMK Ministry, 
he was actively contacting his associates 
and other rowdy elements in order to in- 
dulge in prejudicial acts. Shri Arumugam 
Pilfer, Congress (G-) worker of district 
Madurai, was detained on August 8, 1975 
on. the grounds that he belonged to the 
. CongressCO) and had been preach be 
cessation of Tamil Nadu and was protest- 
ing against the dismissal of the DMK 
Government. The grounds given in 'he 
cases of Shri P. Ramalingam, Secretary 
Madurai District DMK, Shri K. Thiru- 
. pathy and 5 others of District Madurai 
were identical, namely, that they were 
active members of the DMK, had been 
preaching cessation of Tamil Nadu from 
the Indian Union and after the fall of the 
DMK Government they were likely to take 
.part in agitations against the Government. 
In the case of Shri V. Dorai Karm, Dis- 
. tricl South Arcot, the grounds mentioned 
that he was Secretary, City DMK and was 
holding anti-emergency views and was 
hkely to indulge in prejudical activity. Tn 
all these cases cited above, no' police re- 
port .sxecpling the general report of 
Superintendent of Police cr any other 
document was produced to substantiate 
the allegation. 

19.295 In many cases, the grounds of detention 
mentioned that the detenu had been making anti- 
Government or cessationist speeches but no place 
time and date of the alleged speeches was given' 

c?A Se -\? f ^ A " Basha > District South Alrcot : 
S/Snn V. Knshnamurthy Naidu, V. S. Mani and D 
Mayavan of South Arcot). r n District Tiruehira- 
Mlli. in the case of 30 persons, it was seen that 
the grounds vaguely referred to their makin° inflam- 
matory speeches against the Government "or orga- 
nising anti-social elements for anti-national acts but 
no specific instance to substantiate the above va sue 
allegation was given. (Cases of S/Shri Veem 
SS!?m S £ brama , n i um a nd 13 others, and cases of 
S/Shn Muthu Knshnan, Socrates and 13 others) 
Tn all these cases no copy of police report or anv 
other supporting document was sent by the District 
Magistrate to the Government. ..^strict 

19.296 Another general ground mentioned in the 
eases of .many detenus belonging to the DMK was 



108 



that they had been interfering in the District admi- 
nistration and had amassed wealth by questionable 
means. But no evidence of the above 'act ivi ies was 
produced. In,' the case of Shri K. Thannan, District 
i lianjavur, the grounds mentioned were that he was 
reported to have been interfering i n District admi- 
nistration, had amassed wealth by questionable 
means and had suppressed the political activity of 
other parties in his District. In the case of Shri N 
Kittappa of the same District, detained on February 
M, 1^70, grounds mentioned that he used to inter- 
icrc in the administration when he was MLA had 
amassed wealth by corrupt practices, had built a new 
house and got a printing press. He-was a rowdy 
element with lot u! rowdies under his control. 

nf!h 9 ; 2 h 7 W J th rCgard to men] bers and associates 
wi S Wfi?naation* also, the general practice 
was to mention m the grounds of detention, that 
the person belonged to or was a sympathiser of the 
organisation and was having contacts with the under- 
ground cadre of the party.. No specific activity wi 

was ol having contacts with underground cadre but 
no document or report was produced to substantive 

Me^aTr %XT-' CCa f S ° f S/Shd K " Kh "d?ar 
mec an, I. y Shrmivasan Iyer and Chandra Shekh- 
• an Iyer, detained on July 17, 1975, by Police Com- 
missioner, Madras). Shri Dorai Swamy of Sa°?m 
District, was detained on July 21, 1975 on nV 
ground of being an active member of CPIML and 
having contacts with underground memWoMts 
S? n; t ? * as . aI «ady in jail under DISIR and 
the District Magistrate reported that his' release nn~ 
bail or acquittal in the DIK case won d endanger 
the defence of India, but no -specific ac ivity of fe 
detenu was mentioned, V 

1 9 298 Some trade union workers were detain^ 
on the ground that ifeiy had been crit ci4s * ?h? 

ZITthi I? am0Ilg Workers and ^citing workers 
over the bonus issue. fCa^es or Sh.-; c kJ, 

Pillai Secretary, TNTUC fiiS Worto"u&? 

net Kanyakumari; Shri Kaltur Gopal SecrSar"v 
labour Progressive, Federation, Madras Gty; Shr?' 
M A. Babu, District Coimbatore). In all thei 
cases no specific activity of the detenu Avas SS 

19.300 A case came to notice. in which ite <&!*- 
Government insisted on' continuing thTdLn^ If 
a person even though shortly afteri suinf Z ° V f 
of detention, the Disfrict Magistrate Sel -°^ T 
mended revocation, statinc-trmrtfi^S ni ~ 

of detention given by bin? 5* t t'orrlcf ° ^ 



*ttttraa&&a&M£@>&3$£ 



109 



G. V. Pallanaiswamy Gounder of District Coimba- 
lore was detained on February 1, 1976. The 
grounds mentioned were that he was district orga- 
niser of Congress (O) and President of Ganapathy 
Gram Panchayat. He was' said to have conducted 
many public meetings criticising the emergency. He 
was also reported to have convened secret meetings 
and instigated the youth to indulge in subversive 
activities. While the case was still under considera- 
tion of the State Government, the District Magistrate, 
Coimbatore, sent a report on February 4, 1976, to 
the State Government that he had passed the deten- 
tion orders against Shri Pallanaiswamy based on 
information furnished by Superintendent of Police, 
Coimbatore, under instructions from higher authori- 
ties but Shri Pallanaiswamy is a firm believer jn 
Gandhism and has not come to any adverse notice. 
He was well-respected in the locality and had been 
doing very good work as President of Gan apathy 
Gram Panchayat. He had never associated himself 
in any anti-social activities. The District Magistrate 
further inentioned that from his personal inquiries 
also he was satisfied that the detenu had an excellent 
public record and was not in the least associated 
with any anti-social or anti-national activities. There- 
fore, his detention should be revoked. But the Slate 
Home Department insisted (hat since the District 
Magistrate had earlier passed the detention order, 
it should be confirmed. The noting of the' Deputy 
Secretary (Home), dated February 8, 1976, is inte- 
resting. It mentioned : — 

"!t is strange that DM has made a sudden 
voke fade:;.,, An his letter dated 4-2-1976 
describing as if a bedraggled goose, has 
become brilliant swan overnight. It is the 
duty cast on the detaining authority to 
satisfy himself whether the material placed 
■ before him. warranted the detention^ of: the- 

person...... This may invite a charge of 

mala fide against the government which 
the government need not acquiesce in. It 
is, therefore, felt that there is no need to 
re-consider the declaration issued . u/s 
16A(3) of the MISA." 

This was agreed to by the Adviser and the detention 
was confirmed. 

19.301 A majority of persons detained under this 
category consisted of prohibition offenders. Next 
came persons allegedly involved in rice/paddy smug- 
gling in violation of Tamil Nadu State Control 
Order. There were very few detentions of other cri- 
minals involved in offences under the IPC. 

19.302 A scrutiny of cases has revealed that in 
. J large number of . cases concerning bootleggers 

belonging to different Districts, the reports giving the 
grounds of detention were eouched'in a set and uni- 
form language. Many of the concerned Districts are 
Dharampuri, Madras, Nilgiri, Chinglepet, Thanjavur 
South and North -Areot, /Madurai, Kanvakumari, 
etc: - The grounds of detention were as below -.: ■'■ 

"He is a notorious arrack seller having a 
gang of persons employed under him, 
every - evening persons addicted to drink 
S/25 HA/78— 15 



who are normally given to violence and 
illicit arrack supplied to them by Thiru. '. 
. .and his men ; after consumption, used, 
to indulge freely in violent and indecent 
behaviour. As a consequence, the peace 
and the tranquillity is seriously affected 
and people in '■that area become panicky 
and terror stricken and are nor able ' to 
carry out their normal life of society and 
disturbing the social life and thereby caus- 
ing a public disorder. It has been reported 
that prosecution against him and, his gang 
were not successful as nobody came forv 
ward to give evidence against them." 

19.303 The identical language and contents of 
the paragraph figure in a number of cases of deten- 
tions belonging to different Districts, only the name 
of the detenu being different.- How such uniformity 
in grounds of detention between different Districts 
was arrived at remains unexplained. To cite a few 
examples, this paragraph occurs in the grounds of 
detention given, in cases of 'Shri Victor Kabali, Smt. 
Kamala and 26 others of Madras City, Shri Ebnezer, 
Chairman Dorai- and' 37 others of District Chingle- 
pet, S. Mohamad Ghousc and S.'Mohd. Hassan of 
District South Arcot/ 

19.304 In. the cases of persons involved in rice 
and paddy smuggling, the District Magistrate gene- 
rally obtained an affidavit from the Taluqa Supply 
Officer regarding the alleged activities of the persons 
concerned. There were cases in which MISA was* 
used against persons who were alleged to have been 
involved in rice smuggling only on one or two occa- 
sions in thevyear 1974 or the early months of 1975. v 

, n; , 1 9.305 A few cases came to notice in Which 
MISA was used against persons involved in petty 
offences like theft or receiving stolen property, etc. 
Shri Amanullah of Madras City was detained on 
July 23, 1975, on the ground of being a receiver 
of stolen property. It was mentioned that in 1973, 
he was involved in two criminal cases in which iron 
material was seized from his house bu' in both 
these, cases he managed to escape the law. Another 
criminal case of theft in 1974 was also mentioned^ 
against him. 

19.306 According to the information given by the 
State Government in reply to the Commission's 
questionnaire of detentions, the number of Govern- 
ment servants and quasi-Government servants de- 
tained under MISA was 56 and it was seen that 
thev were mostly detained on the ground of affilia- 
tion with the DMK or the banned organisations. , " 

19.307 Kb separate Review Committee was set 
up m the State for periodical review of MISA deten- 
tions. The final orders in review were passed by 
the Adviser to the Governor during the President's 
™|e and by the Chief Minister during the earlier 
DMK rule. For periodical review, the, report of 
the concerning District Magistrate and DIG/CID 
was, obtained. It was noticed that in almost all cases 
the State Government agreed with the District 
Magistrate when he did not recommend the release 



110 



of a person However, there were cases in, which 
the District Magistrate recommended the release of 

he detenu but it was not accepted sometimes on 

t the ground that the report of DIG/CID was not 

available or that he had given an adverse report In 

he case of Shri Krishnan son of Shri Subhiah, Dis- 
trict Ramanathapuram and cases of S/Shri Scvanthi- 
Jingam and Subramaniam, K. Karikaran, P Subra- 
manmm and E Venkettachallam, all of District 

M«£?% & C DiStfiCt M ^'rat c recommend*) 
the release of these persons on the ground that 
hough they were members of DMK, they were not 
likely to be active if released. But this was no 
agreed to by the State Government on the ground 
that the report of DIG/CID had not been received 

19.308 During the DMK rule, parole to MISA 
detenus was granted by the Chief Minister AlTc7 

S°ed bTth J5 * cside f * J^ Anal orders we 
passed by the Adviser to the Governor. No definite 

SStobt ThT.ff d r n m writin e for 5 

So7« n S? 5 tate G ° vernment ti!l October 23 
•a P n l hl$ date ' a Memo - No- 20106/76-1 was 
S tytte Public Law & Order Department in 

According to this memo., parole was to be grfnted 
dauXeTXthf H betr -° thal - 0f Genu's e sf n an and 

chS&eto bSL*^ ilIneSS of P a ™ ts and 
™~o * ^ ■ efore tne lssu e of the circular 

gZnds T aS be '" g ■«™ nted in raan ? «« onThcTc 
19.309 TTie procedure followed in the Stat* 

mending the requests for piolc ttwfl i °T' 
m several cases m,J. P argic - {* w as seen that 

at the UndS &retarl tvS'Jft W t re re J ectcd 
peared to be ttron ^e sons fo? S ^V^ 
favourably. "-'sons rot considering them 

«4LSd by SThSd*^ *L A - Ji « al >. P^ole 
detenu? motSerVad , «*ebra? atef ° UD , d ,hat *= 
mitted in a nursing koS &"m? ™ "■"- 

ward of a nXg W%uf t M , W ,),e fema,e 
between 4 p'm andt pi °" ,y '" "* evcni "S 
-ions Soe S ,° n i he r?r d I r°„ 1 X m I SS 



Magistrate, South Arcot was called for. The Dis- 
trict Magistrate confirmed the fact that detenu's 
mother had been admitted to a nursing home 10 
days back but did not recommend granting of parole 
to the detenu on the basis that a Revenue Officer 
Had been sent to make a surprise check in the 
nursing home and he had reported that detenu's 
mother spoke to him without difficulty though she 
could not move her hands and legs. Hence,- her 
condition did not warrant the granting of parole to 
ner son. The request was accordingly rejected. 

19.312 Shri K Perumal of District Ramanatha- 
puram was refused parole for arranging the marriage 
of his daughter on the ground that this could be 

done by his relatives. 



TRIPURA 

thrill 3 A CCOrding t0 the info rmation supplied by 
the State Government m reply to the Commission's 
ques honnaire, the figures of arrests/detenrion? in 
. T npura during emergency are : — 



MISA 

COFRPOSA 

DISIR 



77 
25 
99 



is given'below T^'™ ^^ ° f the MISA ™™ 



(/) Members/Associates of 
Banned Organisations 

(if) Members/Associates of 
Political Parties 



(iii) Others 



9— all belonging to 
Anand Marg 

1 8 — 6 belonging to 
Cong (R) and 12 
belonging to CPM. 

50 — This includes 3 
economic offenders 9 
Government emplo- 
yees, 1 journalist; 1 
foreigner, 36 anti- 
social elements. 

19.315 J 2 MLAs of the CPIfMl had earlier W>™ 

trta MaX*^,, mder * e *Sfe 
incc Magistrate (West) issued on Mav 20 7Q7S 

before the promulgation of emergency. These deten 
tions were ordered under the noFmal MISA Jdthr 

unh e eM W ?i e ; e / erred t0 the Advisory Board wheh 
2f ■ £ A d £ entK>ns and remarked in the calf of 
Shn Radha Deb Nath onlv that th* h Jf \- c ol 

not justified. -DetentfoS order m respecf of Sh°w n? 
Nath was, therefore, revoked S °3 P", Rf 
and a fresh order invoking Section 16A was S 

per their grounds of detention, worknie »„„';„« 
emergency and also enjoying the^T'cl 

19.316 Detention under MISA nf <=; v -r-v.*.* 

Li mlL" 1 ^ th f n ru,h « p ™ .*&££%£. 

ol^ameiv <?S* &??**■ Five «* '"«e pe- 
sons, namely, S/Shn Rajeshwar Dutta isrir^ti 

Bhatttcharjee, Hemender Bhattacharlec,' S 



: J.^;q;^--'>'«;^'^r f-f'^rs; _ -, 



vmtmmmmwm 



ill 



»»ia*t«sai!*^iH»eiHin3<ffla»^^ 



Ran j an Burman (MLA) and Tapas Dey (ML A) 
were detained under the orders of District Magis- 
trate (West), dated June 27, 1975. Government of 
India sent a message on July 31, 1975 enquiring the 
circumstances of detention of these prominent Con- 
gress leaders: The District Magistrate was asked to 
send the grounds of detention which did not appear 
to have been received till then. The grounds of de- 
tention-, wers- found - to be referring Vaguely to the 
hobnobbing of these persons with CPI(M) mem- 
bers and attending some secret meetings where they 
were alleged to have criticised the emergency and 
called for an agitational approach towards the 
Government. The Chief Secretary sent the file con- 
taining the above information to the Chief Minister. 
Shri D. N. Barooha, the then Secretary to Chief 
Minister, Tripura, recorded a note to the effect that 
the Chief Minister had ordered to include in the 
grounds of detention of these persons "moral turpi- 
tude", "spreading disaffection among the police" 
and "anti-social activities" also. Shri J. Sengupta, 
Deputy Secretary (Home), recorded the following 
note : — 

"Secretary to the CM desired me that 
information relating to the activities of 
some of the MLAs for creating disaffec- 
tion towards the Government among the 
members of police force, etc., should be 
incorporated. He also desired me to in- 
clude information about immoral acti- 
vities of some of the members of Assem- 
bly. Accordingly, ,1 have to discuss with 
the Special Branch (SP/C1D) and after 
discussion with him, I have recorded 
some of the cases which cover up the de- 
sire of the Secretary to the CM. Accord- 
ingly, we have incorporated these items 
into our draft and we have made out a 
revised draft. This may now be considered 
for issue, if so desired. 

Sd/- 
J. Sengupta^ 
Deputy Secretary. 
18-8-1975." 

This was approved by the Chief Secretary and thro 
Government of India was informed accordingly. It 
may be mentioned here that the report of the District 
Magistrate who had issued the detention orders in 
respect of these persons made no mention of the 
moral turpitude, spreading of disaffection among the 
police force, and anti-social activities attributed to 
these persons. 

19.317 District Magistrate (South) had sent on 
September 19, 1975, a proposal for the detention 
of 11 Tripura Employees' Coordination Committee 
workers. This included the name of one Smt. Man- 
julika Bose who was a school teacher. A report from 
the Inspector, District Intelligence Branch, enclosed 
with the proposal, mentioned that Smt. Bose was 
a "hard core teacher" who is "very desperate and 
closely connected with CPM". A reference to a 
secret meeting of August 10, 1975, was also made. 



Another ground for her detention was her active 
role in the collection of "victimisation funds" for the 
assistance of families of dismissed/detained Gov- 
ernment employees. It was mentioned that one 
Shri Nand Lai Majumdar was also actively engaged 
in these activities with Smt. Bose. The case was re- 
ferred to DIG/CID for a report. SP (Special 
Branch) wrote on March II, 1976, recommending 
the use of powers under Article 311(2)(c) of the 
Constitution to dispense with the services of 
Smt. Bose and adding that the activities of 
Shri Majumdar were being watched. No recommen- 
dation regarding ac:ion under MISA is found in 
this report. The Deputy Secretary (Home) sent the 
file to the Chief Minister recommending detention 
of Smt. Bose on the ground that SP/C1D had also 
referred to her prejudicial activities, though without 
recommending action under MISA. The Chief 
Minister ordered detention of both Smt. Bose and 
Shri Majumdar on May 25, 1976 and orders were 
accordingly issued. 

19.318 Examination of MISA files has shown that 
grounds of detention in respect of most of the 
political detenus lack in material particulars about 
their alleged prejudicial activities. Detention orders 
are found to be based on reports of a general nature 
about the anti-Government activities of such per- 
sons who were described as opposed to emergency. 
"Close door meetings" are found to be quite a com- 
mon ground of detention figuring almost in every 
case of political detention. Shri Samir Burrnah, a 
Congress MLA, was detained on the grounds of a 
series of closed door meetings where he had alleged- 
ly expressed his anti-emergency views. Shri Sushital 
Dhar, another Congress leader, was, as per his his- 
tory sheet, containing the grounds of his detention, 
detained because he had criticised Smt. Indira 
Gandhi in some closed door meetings and had con- 
tacts with undesirable elements of Bangladesh. No 
particulars in support of these allegations were given. 
Shri Harendra Roy, a CPI(M) worker was detained 
on the following grounds : — 

"He is a blind supporter of CPM Party . . . 
He is doing nothing and depending on his 
father. Now he is an active worker/ 
leaders of DyF (CPM) and takes part in 
each and every movement of CPM." 

There was only one thing specific in the grounds of 
detention that he was expelled from Taltala School 
in 1969. 

19.319 All the 77 detentions ordered during 
emergency had made use of provisions of Section 
16A and no detenu was communicated the grounds 
of detention. As required by the Act, the detentions 
ordered, by the District Magistrates were to be re- 
viewed by the State Government for the purpose of 
confirmation of the declaration made by the District 
Magistrates. The examination of files has revealed 
that all the declarations made by the District Magis- 
trates were confirmed by the State Government. It 
is also seen that in the initial stages after the pro- 
clamation of emergency, the District Magistrates 
were not forwarding to the Home Department the 
grounds of detention of persons detained by them 



112 



.and were merely sending the copies of the detention 
orders and declarations to the effect that these de- 
tentions, were necessary for dealing effectively with 
th§ emergency. It is, therefore, nor understood how, 
is. the absence of grounds of detention, such cases 
were reviewed and declarations confirmed by the 
State Government. That there appears to have be-en 
no purposeful scrutiny, legal or administrative, 
earned out on the detention orders in the Home De- 
partment, will become clear from the following 
illustrations : — 

(i) Shri Bhupender Dutta Bhowmik, a promi- 
nent journalist, editor of a daily "Dainik 
Samyad" and UNI correspondent, .was 
detained under the orders of District 
Magistrate (West), dated August 1, 1975. 
,.. The District Magistrate forwarded to the 
Chief- Secretary on August 2, 1975 the 
copies off the detention order and declara- 
tion without sending the grounds of de- 
tention of Shri Bhowmik. The order was 
promp:Iy. confirmed, apparently without 
detailed processing in the Home Depart- 
ment. Ministry of Information & Broad- 
casting sent to the Government of Tripura 
on August 21, 1975, a' -signal asking for 
the circumstances of de. v ention of Shri' 
Bhowmik. As the Home Department had 
no material to send a reply to the Govern- 
ment of India, the District Magistrate was 
■ asked on August 22, 1975, to send the 

;/ required particulars. The District Magis- 

trate sent a report on August 30, 1975 
giving the grounds of detention of Shri 
.Bhowmik. These referred to two secret 
closed door meetings of May /June 1975 
and vague allegations about his association 
with the CPI(M). The Government of 
tndia was informed accordingly. 

(ii) One Shri Dinesh Chancer. Saha. an alleged 
rowdy, was detained on August 2, 1975. 
Jne grounds of detention are found tohave 
been signed on December 1, 1975. It is 
Clear that the grounds of detention were 
forwarded ■ to the Home Department 
roughly after four months of his detention 
The_ order was, however, confirmed by 
the State Government within the stipulated 
period of 15 days. 

(iii) S/Shri Puran Chand and .Trishit -Dhar 
were detained under the orders of District 
Magistrate (North), dated August 25, 
1975* for their alleged criminal activities.' 
File- shows that they were involved in some- 
property offences. It is, however, noticed 
that the Superintendent of Police (North) 
had ; sent the proposal for their detention 
on August 30, 1975 enclosing with it the 
history, sheets of these criminals. It i s not 
understood how the detentions were order- 
ed on August 25, 1975, i.e., 5 days before 
the origin of this proposal from the SP. 
Grounds of detention were taken entirely 
from the letter of the SP, Thus, a s per the 
rile, there was no material before the de- 
taining authority on August 25, 1975 



when the detention order was passed. De- 
clarations in these cases were also con- 
firmed by the State Government without 
raising any objection- 

19.320 Vagueness or insufficiency of grounds as 
vitiating the orders was not appreciated by the 
State Government which had confirmed all the deten- 
tion orders issued by the District Magistrates, 
Following examples . of non-political category of 
detentions are given in this connection :— ' 

(i) Shri Amulya Bhushan Chakravarty was 
detained under the orders of District 
Magistrate- (North), dated September ,1, 
1975. It is mentioned in the grounds of 
detention that he was evicting the tribals 
from their land. No specific details -in this 
connection were given, 

. (ii) S/Shri Hira Lai Saha, Harr Bhushan Sana 
and Mukant Lai were detained under 
MISA and are shown in the category of 
H, economic offenders. Shri Hira Lai Saha 

was detained under, the order, dated July 
3, 1975 issued ^on the basis of a police 
report containing vague allegations that 
he was manipulating market prices, hoard- 
ing essential commodities, making huge 
profits and having connections with smugg- 
lers on the lndo-Bangladesh border. No 
particulars of any specific case against him 
were mentioned. 

(iii) Shri Mukand Lai of Belonia was detained 
under the orders of District Magistrate 
(South), dated July 30, 1975, on the 
following grounds *■ — ■ 

"He is known smuggler of Belonia. He ■ 
has amassed much fortune out of nothing 
through smuggling to Bangladesh. He is 
a veteran smuggler, blackmarketeer, profi- 
teer and by these nefarious activities, he 
has at present become millionaire and has 
also created a so-called status based on 
easy gotton money. He has got a gang of 
smugglers under him and he is called un- 
crowned king of smugglers in "Belonia Sub- 
Division. His smuggling activities, throueh 
his gang of agents have not abated even 
following declaration of emergency and 
this has greatly facilitated by his' owning 
a- fleet of light and heavy vehicles which he 
bought from the smuggling money 
earned by him." 

19.321 It is also observed that alleged economic 
offenders in regard to whonr grounds 'of detention' 
refer to their prejudicial activities affecting 'the 
supplies of essential commodities, were detained 
under Section 3(1) (a) (ii) which deals with security 
of the State and maintenance of public order and 
not. under Section 3 ( 1) (a) (iii ) which deals with 
maintenance of supplies and services essential 1 to the 
^community. In spite of this infirmity in the order 
the Home Department had sought the orders from' 



113 



the Chief. Minister for conrjrrnatiori of declarations 
issued by the DM in respect of these persons. It 
appears that the order issued by the DMs were noi 
subjected to any worthwhile scrutiny and were con- 
firmed as a matter of policy. 

19.322 Four-monthly reviews were carried out 
in the Home. Department, Cyclostyled notings were 
prepared fpr obtaining the Chief. Minister's orders 
in this connection. The recommendations of District 
Magistrates were invariably called for before putting 
up the eases to the Chief Minister. Continued deten- 
tion was ordered in each case on the ' basis 
Of the note, recorded by the Deputy 
Secretary (Home) toV the effect that the file 
' was put up to the Chief Minister and he had 
ordered the continued detention of the detenu 
concerned. The Chief Minister himself does not 
appear to have put his signature on any such pro- 
posal in the files. No one was released as a result 
of the four-monthly review of .his detention. The 
■Government of. India had issued instructions on 
October 10, 1975, for the constitution of a State 
level committee to consider the matters connected 
with the four-monthly reviews and. representations 
received from and on behalf of the detenus for their 
release. File shows that Shri J. Sen Gupta, the then 
Deputy Secretary (Home), had put up these inst- 
• ructions to the then Chief Secretary Shri B. S. Ragh- 
vairon November 26,, 1975 suggesting the consti- 
tution of a committee with Chief Secretary as .Chair- 
man and Judicial Secretary and DIG Police as men> 
bers. This was not approved by the Chief Secretary, 
who wrote to Shri S. L. Khurana, Union Home 
■Secretary, on November 29, 1975, saying that, the 
elaborate procedure suggested in the letter from the 
"Home Ministry was not necessary for a; small State 
like Tripura which had little population, "where the 
CM was' personally reviewing each and every deten- 
tion and the Chief Secretary was having constant- 
consultations with the 1GP and other senior police 
officials. The four-monthly . review was, thus, left 
entirely to the Home Department; Scrutiny' of.fi krs 
has also shown that the cyclostyled notings of -the 
Deputy Secretary (Home), leaving space for entering 
[be name of-the- detenu "and . the due date of review 
were sent straight to the CM without any remarks or 
specific recommendations- from the Chief Secretary. 

19.323 No detenu was released as a result of 
considerations of his case ; at "the time Of the periodi- 
cal review. No release was ordered in the. year 1975. 
Only one detenu Shri Amrendra Sharma;was releas- 
ed in September 1976. A majority of the political 
detenus belonging to the GPM ; and'" its'" allies were 
.released in- January 1-977 and the rest Or February/ 
March 1977;' Orders in respect Of the Congress (R) 
detenus, except Shri' Samir Ranjan Burman,- MLA, 
were revoked on February 18, 1977. It is, however. 
seen that all of them; had already been released' on 
parole" and had continufeci 6n ; parole until their 
orders were revoked'. Two of' them namely Shri 
Ramesfiwar Dutta' and Shri' Nirmal-. Bhattachariee 
had rem a in ed on parole since October 1975. So the 
actual 1 detention suffered by the Congress detenus, 
except Shri Samir Ranjan Bur man, was much less 
than the detention of other political detenus; The 



case/ of Shri- Samir Ranjan. Burman. deserves- to be 
set out in detail. The Government . of India had 
issued instructions on February 16, 1977, directing 
the State Governments and Union Territories to re- 
lease most of the political detenus. The Government 
of India had emphasised that orders in respect of 
persons covered under these instructions were to be 
revoked within 48 hours. Orders in respect of 14 
political detenus, including five Congress detenus, 
were, therefore, revoked on February 18, 1977. The 
file shows that the Chief. Secretary had discussed the 
case of Shri Samir Ranjan Burman" with the Chief 
Minister on February 18, 1977. The CM had speci- 
fically ordered that detention of Shri Samir Ranjan 
Burman, MLA, who was expelled from the Cong- 
ress, was to continue. The noting of the Chief 
Secretary shows that the CM had desired that Shri 
Samir Ranjan Burman was to be -treated as an -eco- 
nomic offender and his detention was to continue. 
Shri Burman threatened on .March 9, 1977 to go on 
hunger strike from March" 10, 1977 to focus public 
attention oves the continued detention of several 
political detenus including him., 35 advocates of 
Tripura had also sent a petition to the Government 
on March 8, 1977, urging for his Telease. It is seen 
from the file that the Chief Secretary sent a message 
to the Chief Minister, who was at Kamaipur at that 
time, requesting for decision regarding release of 
Shri, Burman as two more communications from 
Government of India had also been received by that 
time. The order in respect of Shri Burman was re- 
voked on March, 10, 1977. 

■19.324 Examination of files, has revealed that no 
definite policy on parole was 'followed; In fact there 
were, very few cases of grant of parole — Only" 5 in 
1-975 and. 13 in 1976. The cases of 1976 falUnUhe 
last quarter of the year. A large number of detenus 
were released on parole in January /February 1977. „■ 
This was done after the receipt of; instructions of 
Government of India to start effecting -releases.' As 
a matter of fact, these persons were to be' consider-* 
ed for revocation of their orders and not merely for 
their temporary ..release-; Examination of parole 
cases also reveals that once a detenu was released 
on parole, his parole. was never .suspended and 
extensions were granted rrom time to time until the 
detention order was itself revoked. This- will be 
clear ; from- the : following 1 illustrations :~— 

(i) S/Shrj Ramcshwar. ■ Dutta and NirmaJ 
Bhattacharjec,- Congress detenu .detained 
in June 1*975, were „ gran ted parole, in 
Oetober 1975 and they rernainedV through- 
out on- parole until, their orders; were, re- 
voked ©ft- February 1 8 ,. 1977. 

(ii) Shri Hemcnder Bhattachcrjee, a congress 
detenu detained on June 29, 1975, sent 
a petition oh June 1-2? 1976, regretting his 
past political activities and declaring full 
support to the 20-Poiht -Programme. The 
Special Branch /recommended' the' .tem- 
porary "rclea'se- only and*he was. ■''released 
on parole" on September;... 19, 1976. *JfJe 
remained ori parole- - until- the ■order.' was 
revoked 'on February 18, T977,- 



114 



(in) Shri Sushital Dhar of Congress r detained 
on November 17, 1975, was granted 
parole on November 19, 1976 for one 
month. It was extended from time to 
time and he remained on ■parole until the 
order was revoked on February IS, 1977. 

(iv) Another Congress detenu Shri Tapas Dey, 
MLA, was also released on parole on 
December 21, 1976, and remained 1 on 
parole until February 8, 1977, when the 
detention order itself was revoked. 

19.325 Members of banned organisations were 
also, allowed to remain on parole and over consi- 
. derably long periods. Shri Sural Ranjan Khisa, 
detained on July 19, 1975, for his alleged Anand 
Marg activities sent a petition on August 18, 1975 
regretting his past activities and promising to keep 
himself away from Anand Marg. On the basis of 
the recommendations of the Special Branch, he was 
released on parole on November 12, 1975. The 
period of parole was extended from time to time 
and he remained throughout on parole. However, 
as intimated" by the State Government, another 
Anand Marg detenu Shri Gopi Vallabh Saha was 
refused parole in August 1976 on the ground of ill- 
ness of his father as his case was referred to the 
Central Government and no reply had been receiv- 
ed from them. 

19.326 Parole cases of the alleged economic 
offenders also appear to have been dealt with libe- 
rally. Shri Hira La] Saha, an alleged hoarder and 
black-marketeer, detained on July 3, 1975, was 
granted parole on November 18, 1975, on the 
ground of illness of his mother and he remained on 
parole throughout unci] the order was revoked on 
March 21, 1977. Shri Hari Bhushan Saha, another 
alleged economic offender, was released on parole 
on November 1, 1976, and continued to remain on 
parole until his order was revoked. 

19.327 Out of 9 Government employees detained 
under MISA, on account of their TECC activities 
.(Tripura Employees' Coordination Committee), 
services of 7 were dispensed with under the pro- 
visions of Article 311 (2)(c). One of these persons, 
Shri Rakhal Chaudhury sent a petition on August 
20, 1975, for release. The Deputy Secretary (Home) 
recorded on the file that the continued detention in 
such a case where action under Art. 311 (.2) fc) has 
been taken, can amount to a double punishment. 
'The request for release was not accepted. However, 
he was released on parole in December 1975 and 
remained on parole until detention order was re- 
voked on March 4, 1977. 

UTTAR PRADESH 

19.328 Uttar Pradesh topped the list in trie 
country in the number of persons detained under 
MISA. According to information furnished by the 
State Government in reply to the Commission's 
questionnaire on detentions, the total number of 
persons detained under $he MISA, DISIR and 



COFEPOSA during the period of emergency is as 
follows * 



MISA 

COFEPOSA 

DISIR 



6,956 

126 
24,781 



The figures of detentions under DISIR include 
those detained later under MISA, because a number 
of persons were first arrested under the DISIR and 
were later on the same grounds, detained under the 
MISA. 

19.329 The break-up of detention figures under 
the MISA according to the information obtained 
from the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of 
India, is as follows : — - 

Political parties ,,, 785 

Banned Organisations ... 637 

Economic Offenders ... 180 

Anti-socials, Criminals and others ... 5,354 

It is seen that the number of detentions on 
grounds of political activity was proportionately 
small in this State and more than 80 per cent of 
detentions under MISA comprised alleged criminals, 
anti-socials and others. Amongst the persons detain- 
ed for alleged political activity, the majority consis- 
ted of members or associates of 'the Jan Sanffh 
(178), BLD (148) and CPI (145). Among the ban- 
ned organisations, the largest number of persons 
detained belonged to RSS (475). 

19,330 A notable feature of detentions under 
MISA in this State -was- tbara"nuraber of persons 
were first arrested and prosecuted under DIR. Later, 
they were detained under MISA on the same 
grounds when it was apprehended that they were 
likely to be released on bail or otherwise in the DIR 
cases or were already released. Syed Sultan Ahmed" 
(JIE worker) was arrested under the DIR for alle- 
gedly inciting Muslims to oppose Government on 
July 8, 1975. As he applied for parole in the High 
Court, the detention orders under MISA were pass- 
ed on the ground lest he be released on bail by the 
High Court. Shri Harkesh, son of Guru Sahay, was 
in jail facing prosecution under DIR on the ground 
of being an active worker of Sarvodaya. His case 
was to come up for hearing in the court on Septem- 
ber 20, 1975. Order of detention under MISA was 
issued against him on October 28, 1975. 

19.331 At the State level, all cases sent by the 
District Magistrates for confirmation of declarations 
issued under section 16A(3) were routed through 
the Law Department before being submitted to the 
Chief Minister for final orders. It was seen that in 
quite a large number of cases, the State Law Depart- 
ment clearly pointed out the inadequacy, irrelevance 
or impropriety of the grounds of detention furnished 
by the detaining authority and opined against confir- 
mation of the detention. But almost invariably the 
advice of the Law Department was ignored and 
detentions were confirmed by the State Government 
on 'administrative grounds' which were nowhere* 



115 



defined. Shri Ram S/o Shri Raghunath of District 
Lucknow, was arrested and prosecuted under the 
UIK for making anti- Government utterances in pub- 

C °1 /S? 30 ' I975 " He was sentenced to five 
S h * R * and as his sentence was about to expire, 

Janna™ '« f?^ ntl0n " nder MISA was issued on 
January 22, 1976. The State Law Department 

m£TL that **? ^"Government utterance! were 

XL L a £ olher man and the dcteim was onl y 

alleged I to have expressed agreement with him; as 
such the grounds were not at all sufficient for his 
d ^ ntl °Vu nd ^ th S MISA * But «» detention was 
SS 1 !^ 1 ^^ 6 Government. Shri Radhey 
2* L?^ A t dvocat f <> f district Shahjehanpu? 

of A fn3 ^ M 8 ^ ? JUnC 2?> I9?5 ° n the b ^ 

of a single incident of making a statement criticising 
he emergency. The State Law Department opined 
that detention on the basis of a single incident was 
not justified and proper. The State Government 
agreed with the view and revoked the order of 
detention. But Shri Bharti was redeemed on Nov- 
ember 21 1975 by the District Magistrate on the 
ground that on November 3, 1975, he took part 
in a secret meeting of Opposition leaders in which 
it was decided to start an agitation against the emer- 
gency. This order of detention was confirmed by 
the o>tate Government despite the objection by the 
State Law Department that material on record 
was not sufficient to justify the detention. In the 
case of Shri Shiv Nayak Singh of District Sultan- 
pur, detained on August 30, 1976, for being an 
active BJS worker, the grounds of detention referred 
mostly .to his normal political activities before June 
1975 and one incident of May 14, 1974 was men- 
tioned when a procession against levy policy was 
taken dut.^ The Law Department opined that the 
grounds did not refer to any prejudicial activity 
after declaration of emergency and did not recom- 
mend confirmation of the order, but it was confir- 
med by the State Government. 

19.332 With regard to detentions of persons on 
the grounds only of being members of a banned 
organisation like RSS, the State Law Department 
made the following observations in the ease nf 
Shri Mahesh Chander Tiwari of District Agra : 

"1 am unable to notice anything upon 
which the said subjective satisfaction of 
the DM could be found, apart from the 
allegation, of course, that Shri Tiwari had 
been an active member of the RSS. That 
organisation is banned and in the event 
of some overt act, there may be a case 
under Rule 33 of the DISIR but the juris- 
diction to be exercised* under the MISA is 
not to be confused with mere member- 
ship of the organisation . . . .order macte 
in this case upon such material may be 
considered mechanical and without any 
appreciation of the requisite satisfaction 
to be arrived at." 

The above advice notwithstanding, the detention 
was confirmed by the State Government. 



19.333 According to the information given by 
the State Government in reply to the Commission's 
questionnaire on detentions, in no c?se the grounds 
or detention were considered inadequate by the 
State Review Board. However, during the scru- 
tiny of cases of detention, a few cases came to notice 
in which the State Government did not confirm the 
order of detention passed by the District Maeist- 
trate (Cases of Shri Mazrul Haque of Lucknow, 
Shri Vikram Singh of Meerut, Shri Bhagwan Das 
Gupta of District Banda) . ' 

19.334 It was also seen that serious irregulari- 
ties and legal flaws in the orders of the District 
Magistrates operated as ho bar in continuing a 
person's detention under the MISA in many cases 
In Lucknow District, there were some cases in 
which the detention orders passed by the District 
Magistrate were revoked by him suo motu without 
assigning any reason and fresh orders of detention 
were issued on the same grounds. In the case of Shri 
Hafiz, son of Shri Rehman, the first detention order 
was issued on January 22, 1976. on the basis of a 
single incident It was revoked on February 5, 
1976 and fresh detention order was issued which 
was again revoked on February 19, 1976,' ana" a 
third detention order was issued on the same 
ground. The case of Shri Bharat Singh Yadav is 
also similar. Though the Law Department also ob- 
jected to this practice, no follow up action appears 
to have been taken by the Government to stop this 
practice. ^ 

19.335 The cases of 2 MLAs of District Bulland- 
shahr, Shri Aidal Singh and Shri Teja Sinsh de- 
tained under MISA on September 28, 1976 'and 
September 17, 197q\ are worth mentioning The 
grounds given by the District Magistrate in both 
these cases consisted of his own brief report on these 
individuals unsupported by any document or evi- 
dence whatsoever. The grounds given in the Dis- 
trict Magistrate's note regarding Shri Aidal Sineh 
were from secret inquiries, it has been found that 
the activities ot Shri Atdal Singh, MLA of Jawar 
constituency of District BuIIandKhahr are highly 
prejudicial for the maintenance of public order" The 
grounds given in, the case of Shri Teja Singh read* 
"From the confidential inquiry, it has come to light 
that the activity of Shri Teja Singh, MLA.were pre- 
judicial to the maintenance of public order and he 
has close links with notorious dacoit Sunder Singh 
of village Dujena, PS Dadri of District Bullandshahr 
for whose arrest heavy rewards have been declared 
Detention of Shri Teja Singh, is, therefore, necessary 
in public interest \ The State Law Department noted 
m both the cases that they contained no material on 
the basis^ of which any opinion could be given. In 
spite of it, the detentions were confirmed by the 
State Government. 

19.336 As regard's members of the CPI detained 
under the MISA, it was noticed that large number 
u pC i aS2 s Were detained in th © last week of Decem- 
ber 1976 and the grounds given in most of these 
cases related to their opposition to and criticism of 
the 5-pomt programme of Shri Sa'njay Gandhi In 



many, of these cases,. it was mentioned that theCPI 
*3s#mmng to launch an agitation-agaihsMhe lis- 1 
mgi prices. ■ 

19.337 20 Journalists* 153 lawyers, ISO .school/ 
university teachers, 3.6 .doctors, 31 . trade -union '-leb- 
ders/workers 109 .public- servants and 158 students 
, Were^etamed under MISA during emergency in this 
Mate. The scrutiny. of iheir,cases of detention has 
revealed... that -barring. public servants, most of the 
persons in the other categories., were, detained oh 
the grounds of alleged political activities. As re- 
gards public servants, majority of them was detain- 
ed^n.grounds or being involved in corruption cases 
and a-few=on grounds of opposition to family plan- 
ning programme. Detention of Government servants 
on -grounds of corruption was a . distinguishim* fea- 
ture of the'use, of MISA in this State. Most & the ■ 
Cjovernment servants -detained under the MISA on 
grounds of corruption were already being proceeded 
against -imder the, provisions of Prevention of Cor- 
ruption Act arid other laws and in many eases cn- 
mmal proceedings were already pending against 
& m e ° Urt - S ° f Iaw - Ma ^ 6f these vrerl already 
under^uspensioii and, -as such, they could not have 
beea-yin: a - position, to indulge- in any prejudicial 
activity m respect of their- Government service - 

^19,338 In many cases the State Law Department 
P^.^.^t'that detentions on Such grounds were 
not justified but their advice was ignored and dS 
tions were confirmech To Cite an example: ShriN k' 
Snvastav, Assistant Engineer, Levy Irrigation Divi- 
sion Cassipore was detained on November 26 1976 

rL?? f° Und that he . wa * ^sponsible for the pur- 
chase -of. excess quantity ofstones in 1973' which 

ST* T g r rfUSed tiU - M F- 1975 «»«by casing 
tns. >tate< Op^ernment a loss of over 3 lakhs of 

2r^L L ! W ¥f m l nt PQinted out the insuffi- 

mSfoni^hff°> ndS fQr the USe ° f MISA and ^ 
mwuuonea rnat.it was more a case of an officer 

witu ^depaf tmentaHy. Sh 1 ,the, detention was con* 

S^ d n by / he H^ e Go Yf™W and he continued 
■to '^ Jiwfet.detentioa till March 19, 1977 - fw 

£*£$&?$$ ° f i!^* ^^neclou: 
gfKf' 5 9 76 <>n, the basis of an alleged inci-- 
f^t gf_. a^e P? mg illegal, gr^tirication on December 

I -k Wi Wa ^ seen from the file that he was aS" 
l^hm^f ar ^.^J^niption on. October 28, 
ivfueh i"Vm n — m det ^ ntl ° n iWlder MISA- till 

$$£39 Scrutiny of cases. t has. revealed that MISA 
washed to cc^ce- persons to .either get themfe vel- 
sterxlisstofor, bringing cases for stermsation Parti?' 
^%.^hool. teachers, were under , great pressure 
h^tft^'? 1 ? teriIis ^n and .Jome of hem 
h ^ to ^^r:de^itioni^nder MISA for their fair" 
pre to satisfy the Education Department a^orhies 
m this aspect Cases of 3 teachers, S/Shrl ChandS 
^feUmesh Chandra Dixit and Swarni Pra^d 
#W& under. MISA oriSeptember '20, 1976 ampfv 
llIu ^^|iisrpomt v The scrutiny of their casS hK 
Sg %*$*m ^^ctory Schools wrote" 
W% 2- feP^Pt-Magisteate on. September 19 
1^76, givi g the names of ? teachers w ; ho were.hot 



1U- 



complying with the -orders regarding sterilisation. 
Vague allegations about their making propaganda 
against the family planning were also made in the 
report. Shri Ram DaurSharma, ari LDC in the Edu- 
cation- Department, .District Sultanpur, was detained 
on October: 14,; 1976, mainly on a report by the 
District. Basic. Education Officer which referred to- 
ll is .-.refusal to -get himself sterilised. The detention 
was .-confirmed, and the : detenu remained In jail till 
March 3; 1977, In the- case of Sharif-ul-Hassari, 
detained on the ground of opposition to family plan- 
ning, it was seen that the District Magistrate recom- 
mended revocation of, his detention vide his letter 
dated .December 1 0,- 1 976, on the -ground that now 
the detenu had given his consent for sterilisation, 
lhis reveals^ how MISA was used as an -instrument 
Of,-. coercion, for ...forcibly sterilising people,- a consi- 
deration not germane to the purpose of the Act.. 

19.349 158 -students affiliated ro different politi- 
cal ideologies but mainly connected with- the Lok 
Sangharsh Samiti, were detained under MISA In - 
■ Eebruary 1976, the Home Department sent a'cir-' 
cular to ' all distric: authorities' mentioning "all stu- 
dents and teachers ■ already arrested 1 in connection 
with ^prejudicial -and antbnatiorial activities : should 
be proceeded against immediately without wai'ing 
for the outcome of the cases in' the court of law." 

1 9, 341. MIS A was used, on an extensive scale 
against -all kinds of activities ranging from involve- 
ment in .petty .offences like possessing . unlicensed 
arms, ordinary thefts, quarrels, etc., selling milk ~cm 
higher prices,: committing defalcation in Government 
offices and Cooperative Societies, • use of inferior 
material m construction -works by' contractors and 
so, on, most of -which were totally irrelevant for the 
purposes, of the Act. Even persons involved in land" 
disputes did not escape the clutches of MISA- Per- ■ 
sons accused of. an offence like murder, and already 
being prosecute! in a court for the offence were also- 
detained under MlSA (Case of Shri Rajkumar 
Yadav, District Luckncw) . ' 

1 9.342' Large scaie detentions : of petty criminals 
apparently were due to circular No. 75129/VII-3- 
8168/75 dated'July 14, 1976 issued by the 'Com', 
missioner and Secretary, Home. Department (U.P ) 
which laid dpwn a fixed target for reduc ion of crime ■' 
m r each district. ,The circular mentioned that "a 
mmimum reduction, of. 50, per cent im all serious 
primes should be aimed, at during the current year" 
T A e c » r cular further directed that* list of all undesir- 
able elements an,d. criminals in the district should be 
drawn up. at, the district level within 1 5 days of the 
receipt/of this krter. and deterrent Action including 
the use of MISA should be taken against undesira? 
ap.^e persons and criminals. It appears '"'that' the 
district authorities went about thejob of reducing 
-5 r "H e -: b y 'SO: per cent In : their -district simply bf 
detaining a large number of persons against whom 
even ^mmor7erimmal^ffehce>as allesed earlier 
iiyen those persons against whom 'no Criminal acti- 
vity could be shown for the past 8 or 10 years, were 
detained; In the .**«* of Shri -Jai^Kumar, Dis^ct 
Muradabad, the, offences aHeged ^in -the- ground of 



117 



detention related to a period prior to the year 1969. 
The case of Shri Anand Swamp of District Ham.rpur 
was also similar. 

19.343 In a few cases MISA was employed on 
totally irrelevant grounds. Shri Sajjad Khan, son 
of Shri Sukhad Khan, Pradhan of Gram Sabha, 
Nagla Daud, District Farrukhabad, was detained on 
December 23, 1976 on a report by the SDM that 
since long the detenu and his father had occupied 
a land reserved for construction of Block Office and . 
they had now filed a suit in a court for preventing 
the construction of the Block building. The grounds 
given in the Case of Shri H. R. Khan, Chief Editor 
of weekly newspaper "Operation Kanauj", District 
Farrukhabad, detained on December 9, 1916, were 
that his activities had been anti-government. He 
inwardly Opposed the policies Of the Gfongress,. while 
professing outward support, indulged in yellow jour- 
nalism and blackmail, talked against the Govern- 
ment in tea shops and hotels, outwardly talked of 
2 0-point programme but had no faith in, it. and was 
not making any. efforts to highlight the programme 
before the public. 

19.344 Shri Mohan Lai, a contractor of District 
Pratapgarh, was detained on the ground that hef did 
not supply bricks of the specified category in respect 
of a contract undertaken by him. 

19.345 There were cases in, which grounds of 
detention given by the detaining authority were sub- 
sequently found to be false or concocted on GID 
inquiry. Shri Shiv Dutt Adti and 9 others of Dis- 
trict Bulandshahr were detained on July 12, 1976, 
on the ground that they were 1 harassing cultivators 
in the purchase of wheat. .They, used to purchase 

; wheat at a cheaper" rate from the cultivators and 
' sold it back at the FCI wheat purchasing centre 
after mixing other varieties^'"' The Law Department 
opined that in all these cases the report of the Dis- 
trict Magistrate did not disclose what law or rule 
these persons had violated nor was it clear whether 
any offence under the Essential Commodities Act 
was committed. But the detention was confirmed 
oh administrative grounds. Later, on representation 
by these detenus, an inquiry was conducted into the 
matter by CID which revealed that these persons 
who were traders had nothing to do with the illicit 
sale and purchase of wheat and there was no evi- 
dence to substantiate the allegations made against 
them. Thereupon, the State Government revoked 
their detention order on January 23, 1977. 

19.346 According, to the information given by the 
State ^ Government in reply to the Commission's 
questionnaire on detentions, a Review Board was 
constituted by the State Government, consisting of 
the Home Secretary, Secretary to the Chief Minister, 
Legal Remembrancer or his representative, Inspector 
General of Police or his representative and a repre- 
sentative of State Intelligence Department. The 
Board held its sitting twice a month for reviewing 
cases, of detention. However, in several cases,' the 
revocation of detention order was done by the State 
Government without consulting the Review Board. 
Cases have come "to notice in which decision for 

.5/25 HA/7S— 16 ■ 



re vocal ion was taken at the instance of local Cong- 
ressmen. Shri Shiv Sagar, son of Shri Daya Prasad, 
and Shri Prithvi, son of Shri Gajju Mai, both of 
District Etawah, were detained on September 22, 
1975 on the ground that- they were involved in 
yatia' activities in a big way and had also publicly 
incited people against the' Government to commit 
acts of violence on July 7, 1975. The detention 
orders were confirmed by the State Government on 
October. 1, 1975. Subsequently, there were repre- 
sentations on behalf of these detenus stating that 
they were active members of the Congress land had 
been wrongly detained. A large number of certifi- 
cates from Congressmen about their good conduct 
and support to the Congress Party were also filed 
with these representations. The State Government 
obtained the comments of the District Magistrate on 
these representations and he clearly gave the opinion, 
that these personT had an unsavoury police record 
and were notorious for t satta' activities. But" the 
Governor (this happened during the time when U.P. 
was under President's rule) in his order dated Janu- 
ary 3, 1976, mentioned : "In view of the 

large number of certificates given by several res- 
ponsible Congressmen including Pradesh Congress 
President, I am clear that they are not politically 
involved to merit detention under the MISA. At 
best, they must have been indulging in 'sattct and 
it has been stated that cases under Gambling Act 
are already pending against them. That will be the 
natural way to deal with such cases. Under DIR 
also they have been given bail. I thin.k in both the 
cases revocation of MISA may be recommended to 
the Government of India". A recommendation was 
sent to the Government of India accordingly and 
after obtaining approval, the detention orders were 
revoked on February 17, 1976. 

19.347 These two cases illustrate the point that 
while a large number of persons were kept in deten- 
tion for long periods for activities less prejudicial 
than of these two persons, the State Government 
took a very lenient and liberal view in these two 
cases mainly because their cases were recommended 
by Congressmen. The case of Shri Teja Singh son 
of Shri Ram Avtar Shigh of Etawah District, is 
identical. He too was shown special consideration 
by the State Government because of recommenda- 
tions by Congressmen even though he was said to 
be a notorious 'satta' operator. 

19-348 The State Government in their reply to 
the questionnaire on detentions has "mentioned that; 
"no definite policy for granting of parole was laid 
down in black and white. In actual practice, parole 
was granted by the Chief Minister in his discretion. 
Sometimes extensions in period of parole up to 7 
days was granted by the Home Secretary". Scrutiny 
of cases has revealed that in seVeral^cases the Chief 
Minister rejected the request for grant of parole with- 
out specifying any reasons even though it was re- 
commended by the District Magistrate and endorsed 
by the Home Department. In several Vases, request 
for parole was refused even though apparently there 
were strong reasons for granting it. In the case of 
Shri Krishna Kumar Upadhyaya, a RSS worker of 
District Bulandshahr, parole was requested on 
ground of the serious illness of his wife and the 



fact that there was none to look after her The fact 
of illness was confirmed by the SP and the D^tric 

™Sl*t iec S mmend * d release <* P^ole for two 
months, but the request was rejected by the CMef 

^Tt^J^V^ 8 of Shri R ™ SwaLp son o 
Shr Thakur Das of District Muradabad and Shri 
Pratap Narain Singh son of Shri BnTdra SiSh 
2 s *"* Azamgarh, are identical. Shri Am? Kumar 

Gautam a clerk in the gate Bank^Sow tho 
^detained on grounds of indiscipline and mis° 

tSJ? ?2 ?e °f A hls .other's serious illness, by a one 
word order "Aswikrat" (Not approved) It was 
seen that in none of these cases any reason was e i^ n 
SadtbvtJsA d r ^n aI " , ^ ^VesrforTamle 

WEST BENGAL 
« Jf ^ 49 - Th \ nu mber of persons detained in the 

MISA (by invoking Section 16A) — 311 

MISA (Unamended provisions) 4*si 

DISIR bl 

— 2547 
COFEPOSA * ' 

— oU 

19.350 The total number of detentions orderM 

^s m 3T6 m L S t e o^ 16A ,?? the MKATd*&2 
S5 ft * of .these 311 persons were detained 
and the rest remained absconding, The break im of 
ffiws 5 :^ 131 ^ by inVoMn S Action T6A ft 



Political Parties 
Banned Organisations 
Antf-socials, Criminals and others — 



41 

186 

84 



.we"f s fid A S r !he ^S„der 8 L° rderS ■* detotion 
= ded Mlll, S ^„ n ^4 P r S re S t? Se 
S d ^^ 01 ; iSI0 S s Under Section 16Aoith?A?t 
ml .h 8 ^ JS c 1 " 6 deten «ons covered by Secttai 

"TS ^ an extra 0rdinary power and should be 

Sat bX P SPann£ly - Ch - ief Minister desires 
2S.* i ^ Dy P - SOn is de tained without 
giving grounds, an informal approval of the 



118 



Home Department should be taken For 
■ obvious reasons, no written reference should' 
De made, but you may communicate to the 
Home Secretary or the J.S. Home (Special) 
Department over the phone." 

J^ th ^^°r^.^ epartment file No - SPL-102/75, the 
then Chief Minister passed the following orders with 
regard to the cases of detention ordered by invoking 
Section 16A of the MISA : *w*mg 

"No detention order should be issued without 
my consent This will apply to the detention 

£e gTven m a? aT- ^ n ° gr ° Unds need 

19.352 A few cases came to notice in which the 
detenu was earlier detained under the unamended 
provisions of the MISA but was subsequently Sed 
because the Advisory Board did not agree to the con 
firmation of the detention order and immeS ' 
afterwards he was detained by using the nowerS? 

June I r!l^ S °^ lm Pa X Wa , s first detaine d on 
June 28, 1975 on the ground that he attended a secret 

meeting of West Bengl Jan Sangharash Samitf Hi 
^ ntl Src°A rder n Was P^sed under Section 3m/a 
of the MISA. But on the case being referred to the 
Advisory Board as required under the unamended 
provisions of the Act, the Board declared the grounds 
of detention to be insufficient and consequently he 

Ztlm^ri^t^ 8 ' l9 l 5 - .Ate" Won 
September 15, 1975, he was redetained by invoking 
the provisions of Section I6A of the Act on a Sk " 
fembel 26 'EmM ^ ? s ^ c ^ meeting onTep' - 

Sd^gJ^sst was confirracd by 

19.353 District Magistrates sent copies of deten- 
Z n OTd ^i d ^ 4 eclarat i on n ^de under Section 16M3) 

grounds of detention were sent to the State Govern 
ment and this h. story sheet was apparently treated as 
the grounds. It was seen that in most cases the h sto™ 
sheet contained an account of the detenus' life from 
the beginning and most of the facts and actividS 
mentioned therein had little relevance, to the p J DO S 
of issuing the order of detention. In the end! a few 
activities alleged to be prejudicial were mention*? 
} n ? ie +1 , Sta ^. Ho ^ Pepartment, the cases were D ut 
up to the Minister of State for Home for final oXs 
of confirmation. It was seen from the files that IitrE 
scrutiny of the grounds of detention was done at the 
State Government level. In almost all cases the Home 
Department put up a note for confirmation of the 
detention order. Out of the total number of detentions 
ordered under the MISA, only in one case the °Stote 
Government refused to confirm the declaration issued 
by the District Magistrate (Case of Nimai ChSa 
Jena, District Midnapore). The Law Department" 
was not involved in the scrutiny of detention casS 

19.354 The largest number of persons detained 
under tins category belonged to the CPIM (8) in 
the cases of persons belonging to the political parties, 



atea-aa-i- itEiESJ^ j: , 



119 



the history sheet furnishing the grounds of detention, 
sent by the- police mentioned some past political 
activity of the detenu such as taking part in meetings 
and activities of the party concerned and in most cases 
one secret meeting held during the period of emer- 
gency was .'mentioned in which the detenu was 
alleged to have participated. A similar procedure was 
followed in the case of banned organisations also. 
In very few cases, more than one secret meeting was 
mentioned in which the detenu was alleged to have 
participated. Biman Mitra, Calcutta, was detained 
- on September 14, 1975 and his history sheet mentioned 
that he was the leader of Jan SangharasH Sarm'ti and 
had attended a secret meeting on June 26, 1975. No 
other activity was mentioned. He was detained about 
3 months after the date of this alleged secret meetin 
Dhrub Deo Narainsingh and Aloke Mukherjee, both 
of District 24-Parganas, were detained on the grounds 
of being Anand Margis and attending a single secret 
meeting of Anand Marg on June 26, 1975 in which it 
was allegedly decided to oppose the emergency. Nimai 
Chandra Saha, District Hooghly was detained on 
November 27, 1976 on the ground that he took part 
in various activities of the CP1ML in 1973-74. History 
sheet did not reveal any activity after August 1974. 

19.355 24 Government servants were detained 
under the MIS A. Most of th:-m were detained on the 
ground of being active members of either the Central 
Government or State Government Employees.' Asso- 
ciation and trying to adopt go slow tactics or dislocate 
work in offices and factories. Panchu Gopal Bannerjee, 
Pantos h Kumar Biswas and 6 other employees of the 
Central Government working in various offices like 
Posts & telegraphs, Income Tax etc. were detained on 
■identical grounds of being members Or office bearers 
of Central Government Employees' Association and 
members of the Coordination Committee of the Asso- 
ciation. It was mentioned in the history sheet that 
the Coordination Committee held a meeting on July 
5, 1975 in which it was decided to undermine normal 
working in all Central Government Offices and in 
pursuance of this decision, these persons secretly 
incited the employees in their respective offices to 
resort to work to rule tactics on July 7, 1975, Sham 
Lai Mukherjee, Food & Civil Supplies Inspector in 
District Purulia was detained on July 21, 1975 and 
'his history sheet only mentioned that he was an active 
member of employees association and had been indul- 
ging in whispering campaign to spread dissatisfaction 
among the employees. 

19.356 24 Trade Union workers were detained 
under the MlSA. In most of their cases, it was alleged 
that they attended a meeting in which it was decided 
to adopt go slow tactics. In some cases, it was alleged 
that they had created disturbance in the concerning 
factory. (Cases of Beni Madhav and Mukul Chand 
Biswas ot Metal Works Company, Calcutta). 

19.357 The number of anti-socials and criminals 
detained under Section 1 6A of the MISA was pro- 
portionately small. Most of them were detained on the 
grounds of being involved in offences like assault, 
stabbing, robbery etc. The history sheet sent by the 
police mentioned only--the number and sections of the 



law of offences in which they were alleged to have 
been involved in the past. There were a few detentions 
on the grounds of indulging in paddy smuggling or 
not paying rice levy. Tarakdas Mukherjee and Durga 
Das Sarkar, both of District Burdwan, were detained 
on March 13, 1976 on the grounds that they were big 
paddy cultivators and businessmen. They did not pay 
the full levy on rice imposed on them and had filed a 
case in the High Court against the levy collection. 

19.358 In March 1977, the State Government 
directly issued detention orders in respect of 27 
persons who were said tq be anti-socials. There is 
one combined file (No. SPL-24/77) containing a note 
dated March 14, 1977 of the then Home Secretary 
which read : 

"As desired, the history sheets of the follow- 
ing persons are placed below :" 

A list of 27 persons was given in the note. On this 
note of the Home Secretary the following order were 
passed by the then State Minister for Home and 
approved by the Chief Minister : 

"Seen History sheets. Issued orders of deten- 
tion under Section 16A of the M[3A. Classi- 
fication A." 

19.359 It was seen that the State Ministerfor 
Home added one name, Devi Ghoshal of Belgharia, 
at the end of this list and 6ne name of Ananda Ghosh 
was struck off. The orders of detention were actually 
executed in respect of Only 15 out of the 27 persons 
and the remaining 12 were not apprehended. All the 
27 orders of detention were revoked by the State 
Government on March 21, 1977. The history sheets 
of many of these persons were very brief and hardly 
disclosed any prejudicial activity. In the case of 
some detenus the main ground mentioned in the 
history sheet was that they disturbed the election 
meetings of the Congress Party or^attackedCongress 
workers. 

19.360 The brief note of grounds of detention in 
the case of Rustam Ali Sarkar of District Murshida- 
bad only mentioned : 

"He owns about 10/12 bighas of land. Due to 
poverty of his father he could not prosecute 
his studies further. As he grew up, he took to 
cultivation and began to cultivate his father's 
lands. He has considerable influence on the 
rowdies of his locality." 

In the case of Mohindra Nath Singh the grounds were : 

"He is an Assistant Fitter in Krishnapore 
Railway Loco Shed under P.S. Lalgola. He 
gets Rs, 315 p.m. from the Railway service. 
He associates with the rowdies of Lalgola." 

Similarly the only adverse thing mentioned against' 
Maidul Islam of District Murshidabad, was, "He 
associates with the local rowdies." In the case of 
Barun Kumar Bhaduri, the grounds mentioned were 
that he had been involved in a criminal offence in 



120 



1964 and on March 5, 1977 a complaint was lodged 
with the police, about his having assaulted .some mem- 
bers who were campaigning for the Congress candi- 
date Shri P. R. Das Munshi. The same ground was 
given in the case of Bhabesh Bhattaoharjee of Calcutta. 

t 19.361 As regards review of detention cases per- 
taining to Section 16A of the MIS A, informal Regional 
Committees comprising 2 or 3 Ministers of State or 
Deputy Ministers were constituted by the State 
Government vide Home Department order 
No. 16402(16) dated; September, 11, 1975. Different 
districts were grouped together and placed incharge 
of a Regional ,Committee. However, final orders in 
review were passed by the State Minister for Home in 
respect of all districts except Calcutta City which was 
kept in the charge of the Chief Minister. 

19.362 These committees were constituted for the 
statutory four monthly review. But scrutiny of files 
pertaining to the proceedings of the Regional Commit- 
tee has revealed that these committees did not meet 
regularly. The cases were processed for presentation 
before the Committee but on many occasions, it was 
recorded on the files that the Ministers concerned 
could not be contacted despite best efforts. State- 
ments of detention cases were prepared for each 
review, showing the date of detention and opinion 
of the detaining authority regarding the continuation 
of detention or release of the detenus. In the last 
column the recommendations of the Regional Commit- 
tee were to be recorded. But it was seen from the 
files that in quite a large ntunber of such statements, 
no recommendation of the Committee was recorded. 
However, four-monthly review of detention cases was 
done regularly by the Home Department. The deten- 
tion cases were put up by the Department for review 
to the State Minister for Home who passed the final 
orders. But in the note put up to the Minister, no 
mention was ever made of the recommendations of 
the Regional Committee. Only the opinion received 
from the detaining authority was mentioned. In most 
cases the decision to continue or revoke the detention 
was in accordance with the opinion given by the detain- 
ing authority. 

19.363 In cases which were considered by the 
Regional Committees, it was seen that mostly the 
Committee also went by the opinion of the detaining 
authority.^ Tn 24 cases, the detention orders were 
revoked by the State Government before the expiry 
of 4 months from the date of detention. '' 

19.364 In addition to the 311 cases of detentions 
made by invoking Section 16A of the MISA, 4681 
detention orders, were issued under the unamended 
provisions of the MISA during the period of emer- 
gency in the State. Out of these 4084 persons were 
actually detained. All these cases were referred to the 
Advisory Board as required by law. In 735 cases the 
Advisory^ oard did not give its approval for confir- 
mation of the detention order as they did not find the 
grounds of detention to be proper or sufficient. Con- 
sequently, the detenus were released by the State 
Government. 



19.365 West Bengal was the only State m.which 
the unamended provisions of the "MISA were used to 
detain persons on a large scale, during the emergency. 

19.366 There were not many cases of requests for 
parole being refused with regard to the persons who 
were detained by invoking Section 16A of the MISA. 
However, in 3 cases parole was refused as the detain- 
ing authority objected to the release of the detenu on 
parole. Narayan Ch. Mallick, District Secretary, 
RSS, Howrah, requested for parole on February 4, 
1976 on the grounds of illness of his old mother. It 
was rejected as the District Magistrate opposed it, 
Later his mother expired on March 1, 1977 and on 
March 2, 1977 he was granted 7 days parole to attend 

. the ceremonies. 

19.367 The mother of detenu Dibaker Roy of 
District Burdwan requested for parole for her son on 
September 1, 1976 for settling his daughter's marriage. 
The opinion of the detaining authority was obtained. 
The District Magistrate reported on the basis of 
Police enquiry that detenu's mother was 70 years old 
and he was the only. earning member in the family. 
He would maintain the family by dealing in paddy in 
a clandestine manner. Hence his release on parole was 
not recommended. The request was rejected. ' 

19.368 In some cases in which the District Magis- 
trate opined against the release of a detenu in four 
monthly review, the Regional Committee recommend- 
ed release on long parole of 1 to 3 months and such ' 
parole was granted. (Case of Bijoy Kumar Sain of 
District Burdwan. He was granted 3 weeks' parole 
on September 25, 1976 which was continuously ex- 
tended till his final release). 

19.369 With regard to the persons detained under 

the unamended provisions of MISA, request for parole 

was refused in about 50 cases. In almost all these 

cases, parole was requested on grounds of illness of 

near relative like father, mother, wife and son but the 

detaining authority reported that the illness was not 

serious or that there was no illness. (Cases of Abdul 

Hakim of Malda. Nikunja Ray of Murshidabad. 

Hafijuddm Mondal of Burdwan. Kalu Sheikh of 

Nadia). Farid Sheikh of Murshidabad requested for 

parole on the ground of illness of his wife. His request 

was rejected because the District Magistrate opposed ■ 

it on the ground that he was a dangerous criminal and 

if released might resort to crime. In many cases, 

parole was also granted for attending Shradh ceremony 

of father, mother and grandfather. 



ANDAMAN & NICOBAR 

19.370 According to the information supplied by 
Andaman & Nicobar Islands Administration the 
figures of arrests and detentions in Andaman & 
Nicobar during the period of emergency are ; 



MISA 
COFEPOSA 

DISIR 



41 

Nil. 






121 



19.371 Scrutiny of MfSA cases has revealed that 
48 detention orders involving 47 persons were issued 
during the period of emergency . One Shri V. K. 
Hamza was detained twice. 6 persons could not be 
detained. As such 41 persons had actually been 'de- 
tained. . All the detention orders were issued in the 
context of emergency invoking section 16 A. 

19.372 Category-wise break up of the 41 detenus, 
as furnished by the Andaman and Nicobar Administ- 
ration, is given telow : 

(i) Mem bars or associates 

of banned organisations 28 (16 of Anand 

Marg & 12 of 
JEI) 

(ii) Members Or associates 

of Political Parties , Nil 



(iii) Others 



13 



19.373 Records show that the third category 
comprising mainly the alleged economic offenders 
and anti-social elements, included 'two leaders of a 
political organisation called Indira Brigade" which 
came into existence in the Islands after the split in the 
local Congress leadership, 

19.374 There were one journalist, three students 
and 15 public servants ■ among -the detenus. 

19.375 It will be clear, from the above that 
two thirds of total detentions were ordered in respect 
of the alleged members, of the banned organisations. 
It has been intimated by the Andaman and Nicobar 
Administration that after the receipt of the instructions 
from the Government of India regarding the banning 
of certain political parties and organisations, a meet- 
ing was held on July 4, 1975 under the chairmanship 
of the Chief Secretary which was attended by the 
District? Magistrate and the Inspector General of 
Police. It was decided to detain 16 Anand Marg and 

9 JEI workers. The names of these persons along with 
the grounds of detention were sent by the Inspector 
General of Police to the District Magistrate on July 
4, 1975 and he issued detention orders on the same 
day. It is also seen that detention orders in respect of 

10 more persons including 9 alleged members Of the 
banned organisations were issued by the- District 
Magistrate on July 5, 1975 on the basis of another 
list sent by the Inspector General of Police on the 
same day. The grounds of detention forwarded by 
the Inspector General of Police are found to have 
merely mentioned the alleged association of the indivi- 
dual concerned with the banned organisation- Anand 
Marg or JHI— without showing any specific activities 
of the person in support of these allegations. 

■ 19.376 The following detention cases are note- 
worthy : — 

(I) S/Shri M.B.A. Rashid, V. K. Khalid and 
N. Moosa were detained under the orders of District; 
Magistrate, Andamans, issued on July 4, 1975. 
Grounds of detention in respect of these persons as 
furnished by the Inspector General of Police to Dis- 
trict Magistrate and sent by the latter to the Adminis- 



tration after issuing detention orders are reproduced 
below :— 

(1) Sim M. B. A. Rashid 

"He is a staunch Jamat-e-Itlamite". 

(2) Shri V.K. Khalid 

"An extreme supporter of Jamat-e-Islami. 
Does anti-Government propaganda and 
collects money in the name of Jamat-e-Islami 
from the public." 

(3) Shri N. Moosa 

"A supporter of Jamat-e-Islami. Collects 
funds from the villagers." 

The Administration confirmed these detention orders 
on July 10, 1975. Scrutiny has revealed that the above- 
mentioned persons were arrested at Mallapuram in 
Kerala on August 20, 1975 and brought to Port Blair. 
Shri P. Mohd. Koya, General Secretary, Kerala 
Muslim Association, Port Blair sent a petition to the 
Chief Commissioner on September 15, 1975 request- 
ing him to intervene in the detention of these boys 
aged between 12 and 16 who were sent by the Kerala 
Muslim Association to the religious institution at 
Mallapuram for religious education in Arabic medium. 
The District Magistrate and Inspector General of 
Police were asked on September 20, 1975 to furnish 
their comments on this petition. Scrutiny has revealed 
that their cases were reviewed in the Review Commit- 
tee meeting held on September 22, 1975 which was 
attended by the District Magistrate and the Inspector 
General of Police and detention orders were revoked 
oil the same day on the ground that their "detention 
was no more required for dealing effectively with 
Emergency". CID records were examined to ascer- 
tain the information available with the police in 
support of the grounds of detention of these persons 
in regard to their JEI activities. These records reveal 
that there is only One entry according to which Shri 
M.B.A. Rashid participated in an indoor meeting of 
JEI on October 6, 1974. As regards S/Shri KhaHd 
and Moosa mentioned above, there are three entries 
in the year 1973 and two in 1974. These entries merely 
record the information regarding the arrival and 
departure of these boys^ from their school in Kerala 
and back during the summer vacations. There is 
not even a mention of JEI in these entries in respect 
of the two persons named above. 

(II) Shri Mukand Mondal was detained on&July 
10, 1975 on the basis of the orders -issued by the 
District Magistrate, Andamans, on July 5, 1975 
on the ground that he was a member of "Anand Marg 
Pracharak Sangh".. No details of any activities in 
support of , this allegation were given in the one 
sentence comprising the grounds of detention. The 
name of his father was also not mentioned in the 
detention order. The orders were confirmed by the 
administration on July 10, 1975. It is seen that Shri 
S. M. Krishnatry, Chief Commissioner, recorded 
the following u.o. not on September 20, 1975 and 
marked it to the Chief Secretary, I nspector[ General 
of Police and the Deputy Commissioner : — 

"I understand that one Mukand Mondal' was 
arrested in connection with banning of the 



122 



Anand Marg. It' has been reported that the 
person concerned with Anand Marg was one 
'Mukand Majhi' and not 'Mukand Mondal'. 
If a genuine mistake has been made in regard 
to the identity, action should have been taken 
automatically to release the innocent person . 
Necessary enquiry may be mr.de and action 
taken accordingly now". 

Scrutiny of concerning files of the Administration 
Secretariat, Deputy Commissioner and Inspector 
General of Police did not' reveal any evidence of an 
enquiry having been made in this regard as ordered 
by the Chief Commissioner. Scrutiny of CID records 
revealed that the name of Shri Mukand Majhi son of 

u r oT^ 0ges - h Ma: * hi hac * fi S ured ^ two reports sent 
by SI Special Branch, Rangat, on May 10, 1974 and 
July 15, 1975 where it was mentioned that he was a 
prominent worker of Anand Marg at Nimbootala 
Nothing is found in CID records against, Shri 
Mukand Mondal except the mention of his name in 
one list of sympathisers of Anand Marg at Rangat 
His parentage was not mentioned in this list. This 
list is undated and bears no signatures and reveals 
no details of association of Shri Mukand Mondal with 
Anand Marg. The case of Shri Mukand Mondal was 
reviewed in the Review Committee meeting held on 
September 22, 1975 and the order was revoked on the 
same day on the ground that "his detention is no more 
required for dealing effectively with Emergency " 
Since the detailed proceedings of this Review do not 
appear to have been recorded, the reasons prompting 
the Administration to revoke the detention order in 
respect of Shri Mondal could not be known. 

. (Ill) S/Shri Suleman and P. P. Kuriakose, Fair 
Price Shop owners, were detained under the orders 
?L? Istr]C i. Magistrate, Andamans, passed on July 3, 
iy/5 on the ground that they were engaged in black- 
marketing and hoarding of . essential commodities. 
Shri A. Knshnan Nair, another alleged economic 
offender was detained on July 5, 1975 for his failure 
to display the stock position and price of the essential 
commodities and indulging in hoarding and black- 
marketing. Another Fair Price Shop owner Shri 
Santhyago was detained on August 5, 1975 on similar 
grounds, All these detention orders were confirmed 
by the Administration. The case of Shri Suleman was 
one of the cases reviewed on September 22, 1975 and 
his detention order was revoked the same day on the 
ground that 'his detention was no more required for 
dealing with the Emergency". The cases of S/Shri 
P.P. Kuriakose, Knshnan Nair and Santhyago were 
considered m the Review Committee meeting of 
December 9 1975 and it was decided to release them 
on parole for a period of six months. Orders to 
release these persons on parole for six months were 
accordingly issued on December 22, 1975 and they 
were released on parole on the same day. The con- 
cerned files show that though the period of their 
parole expired on June 22, 1976, these persons conti- 
nued to remain free throughout the period of emer- 
gency without any order for extension of the period 
of parole It is also seen that the detention orders in 
respect of these persons were not. revoked at all In 
iact, as per records, these orders are yet to be revoked 



19,377 Of the 48 detention orders issued m 
Andamans and Nicobar during the period of emer- 
gency, two were issued directly under the orders of 
the Administrator. 46 detentions were ordered by the 
Di ;tiict Magistrate, Andamans, The detentions ordered 
by the District Magistrate in the context of emergency 
were required to be confirmed by the Administrator 
within 15 days. It has been reported by the Adminis- 
tration' that only in one case, namely that of Shri 
B. C. Bhattacharya, the declaration issued by the 
District Magistrate was not confirmed. As such, 45 
detention orders of District Magistrate were con- 
firmed by the Administration. 

19.378 Shri B. C. Bhattacharya, an employee of 
PWD, was detained under the orders of District 

Magistrate, Andamans, passed on July 5, 1975 on the 
following grounds : — ■ 

"He is an active trade unionist of these Islands 

with communist leaning. He is having' close" 

contact with ultra leftist parties and CPM 

..; leaders like S/Shri Jyotirmoy Bosu, George 

Mathew and Mohd. Ilyas. He is active in 

organising and preparing the members of 

the Trade Unions for agitations and strikes 

etc. of late, he had been active in trying 

to incite the workers presently engaged in the 

construction of Great Andaman Trunk Road 

at Jirkantang. The road is of very vital 

importance for economic development as well 

as from the defence point of view. He is 

an extremist and highly anti-Government. A 

man of short temperament." 

Shri Bhattacharya was taken into custody on the 5th 
July, 1975. The District Magistrate, Andamans and 
Nicobar Islands referred the case to the Administra- 
tion on July 6, 1975 for the confirmation of the 
detention order. Scrutiny has revealed that before the 
orders of the Chief Commissioner could issue the 
District Magistrate wrote to the Chief Commissioner 
on July 9, 1975 that "the grounds on which he was 
detained do not exist any more, since the workers 
presently engaged in the construction of the great 
Andaman Trunk Road on Jirkantang arc- not suscep- 
tible to his influence under the present circumstances 
He will not be able to incite the workers to that area 
m the immediate future. and his further detention is 
not called for". The District Magistrate requested 
the Chief Commissioner to_._approve- -the release of 
Shri Bhattacharya. This was approved by the Chief 
Commissioner and the Administration wrote to the 
District Magistrate on July 10, 1975 informing him 
that he was competent to issue the revocation order 
m this case. The District Magistrate revoked the 
detention order on July 10, 1975 and Shri Bhattacharya 
was released. J 

19.379 Scrutiny has revealed that in the case of 
detentions ordered by the District Magistrate in early 

u y J- 975 ' the C0 P ies of the declarations issued by ' 
the District Magistrate under section 16A were not 
forwarded to the Administration. In fact, in respect 
of the orders issued on July 4 and 5, 1975, the District 
Magistrate did not forward to the Administration even 
the copies of the detention orders. He has simply 



.-.•kitototosft re • ...''.. 



123 



sent a u.o. note informing the Administration about 
issue of ^25 retention orders on 4th and 10 on 5th 
July, 1975 and enclosed a sheet giving the grounds, of 
detention in respect of these persons. 

19.380 Pointing out the omission of declarations 
under section 16A in the cases of S/Shri Suleman and 
P. P. Kuriakose detained on July 3, 1975, Shri M. R. 
Malik, Judicial Secretary, recorded on July 8, 1975, 
that : 

"Copies of the two'detention orders of DM 
clearly indicate that DM has issued them 
haying been satisfied that the detentions 
are necessary for dealing effectively with the 
emergency/But in the said detention order, 
DM has not made the specific declaration 
that the detention is necessary for dealing 
effectively with the emergency. It is also the 
requirement of the Ordinance that the copy 
of the declaration is communicated to the 
detenu. So if the order does not specifically 
show that the detaining authority has made 
the said _ declaration the copy of the order 
communicated to the person concerned 
would not indicate that such a declaration has 
been made by the detaining authority, accord- 
ing to the amended provisions of MIS A, 
so long as such declaration remains in force, 
provision regarding sending the detenu to 
the Advisory Board for review of the deten- 
tion order does not take effect. So a vital 
right of the detenu has been taken away. 
Therefore, strict compliance of the amended 
provisions of MISA has to be made by the 
detaining authority, otherwise there is every 
possibility of the order being struck down 
by the High Court or Supreme Court only on 
the ground that the declaration has not been 
made by the detaining authority that the 
detention is necessary for dealing effectively 
with emergency, The attention of the. DM 
may be drawn to this aspect of the matter." 

This was approved by the Chief Commissioner and the 
Chief Secretary wrote demi-officially to the District 
Magistrate, Andamans directing him to ensure comp- 
liance with the requirements of Section 16A of the 
MISA. Scrutiny of files of these persons in the office 
of the District Magistrate has revealed that the requir- 
ed declarations under Section 16A were made by the 
District Magistrate but the same were not dated. 
Records do not show that these declarations were 
served on the detenus. In fact, none of the declara- 
tions issued by the District Magistrate appear to have 
been served formally on the detenus concerned. 

19.381 Scrutiny has revealed that four-monthly 
statutory reviews of MISA cases were conducted by a 
Committee consisting of the Chief Commissioner as 
Chairman and Chief Secretary, Inspector General of 
Police, Deputy Commissioner* Judicial Secretary and 
Deputy Central Intelligence Officer, as members. 
The same committee met occasionally to consider the 
representations received , from or on behalf of the 
detenus without waiting till the due date of the next 
statutory review: This committee "had met 8 times 



during the period from September 22, 1975 to January 
22, 1977 and 24 persons were released on its recom- 
mendations. The details of the proceedings of the 
first Review held on September 22, 1975 leading to 
the release of 7 persons do not appear to have been 
recorded. The decision to release these persons was 
based on a brief note of the District Magistrate duly 
approved by the Chief Commissioner to the effect 
that it was decided to release these persons since their 
detention was "no more required for dealing effec- 
tively with emergency". Proceedings of all the other 
Reviews were recorded in detail. Scrutiny has revealed 
that the Government of India did not accept the pro- 
posal of the Administration for the release of S/Shri 
B. K. Samadar, Harendranath Majumdar, Mani 
Mohan Dutta and Hari Singh Rathore who were 
recommended for release by the Review Committee 
which met on November 1, 1975. However, these 
cases were reviewed again in the next Review Commit- 
tee on March 31, 1976 and the Government of India 
was approached again. Government of India accord- 
ed approval and they were released on May 19, 1976. 
In the case of Shri Natwar Bachar detained on July 6, 
1975, the Review Committee recommended his revo- 
cation and Government of India was approached on 
June 22, 1976 for approval for his release. The 
Government of India wrote on July 15, 1976 that it 
did not consider outright release of Shri Natwar 
Bachar appropriate and advised the Administration 
to release him on parole for 2 months. Shri Natwar 
Bachar was accordingly released on parole on August 
6, 1976. He was granted parole again for three months 
with effect from November 1, 1976 after obtaining 
approval from Government of India. His detention 
was revoked on February 20, 1977 after the reyiew 
of the case in the light of the fresh instructions received 
from the Ministry of Home Affairs. 

19.382 Most of the detenus had been released by 
February 19, 1977. There were only 6 persons in 
custody on March 21, 1977. Orders, in respect of 
these persons and 2 parolees— S/Srnji P.,K. Biswas 
and P. K. Mohd. Ali were issued on March 21, 1977, 

19.383 Scrutiny has revealed that only 7 out of 
the total of 41 detenus\ were released on parole. 4 of 
them were alleged economic offenders who were 
released on parole for six months on December 22, 
1975- They .continued to remain free even after the 
expiry of the;pericd of parole. One Natwar Bachar, 
an alleged Anand Marg worker, was released on parole 
twice, once for two months and then for 3 months 
after obtaining approval of the Central Government. 
Shri P. K. Mohd. Ali of JEI was released on parole 
for 2 months on January 1, 1977. Shri P. K. Biswas, 
an Anand Margi, was released on parole for six 
months on January 22, 1977. Parole was granted in 
these cases on the recommervlation of the Review 
Committee. Scrutiny has revealed that S/Shri Biren 
Haldar and R. Shanti Krishna, leaders of the Indira 
Brigade, were recommended by the Review Commit- 
tee for release on parole and orders granting them 
parole for 2 months were issued on January 22, 1977. 
However, Shri Shanti Krishna refused to be released 
on parole and sent the petition to the Chief Commis- 
sioner requesting for his unconditional release. 
Shri Biren Haldar did not avail of the parole granted 



m 



to him. Their orders were revoked on. February 
6, 1977 after review of their cases in the light of the 
fresh guidelines received from the Government of 
India. 

19.384 The case of Shri P. K. Mohd. AH son of 
Shri Kunji Haji, an alleged JEI detenu is noteworthy 
He was detained on July 4, 1975, under, the order of 
District Magistrate, Andamans. One P. K. Moideen 
sent a petition to the Additional District Magistrate, 
Andamans and Nicobar Islands on September 17, 1976 
saying that : "my brother P. K, AH resident of Wim- 
berley Gunj has expired today at 11 a.m. in our 
house at Wimberley Gunj. One of my brothers 
P. K. Mohd. is at present a detenu in District Jail in 
connection with MISA case, I,, therefore, humbly 
request you, Sir, that my brother P. K. Mohd. may 
' kindly be allowed to see at least the dead body of our 
deceased brother P. K.. AH today itself as he was in" the 
District Jail since last one year. If necessary, he may 
be brought by police escort". This was certified by 
S/Shri K. T. Mammani and M. Mohd, Village 
Chaudhari of Barhbooflat. Shri O. S. Chauhan, 
District Magistrate, Andamans, made the following 
endorsement on this petition on September 17, 1976 : 

"This may be allowed under police escort 
on humanitarian grounds and he should be 
brought back to the jail by 9 p.m. today." 

The file shows that the Superintendent Jail Port Blair 
wrote to the Inspector General (Prisons) on September 
■1.7, 1976 that: 

"According to your telephonic instructions, 
P. K. Mohd. detenu has not been allowed to 
proceed to Wimberley Gunj and the direction 
of the District Magistrate allowing P. K. 
Mohd. to Wimberley Gunj under police escort 
has not been complied with. The applicant 
Shri P. K. Moideen has been informed that 
the orders of the State Government are 
necessary. Application of Shri P. K. Moideen 
in original is enclosed herewith." 

Shri P. K. Mohd. thus could not see the dead body of 
his brother Shri P. K. AH who died on September 17, 
1976 as he was not permitted to leave the jail. 



ARUNACHAL PRADESH 

19.385 According to the information supplied by 
the Arunachal Pradesh Administration in reply to 
the Commission's questionnaire, no detentions under 
MISA or COFEPOSA were made in Arunachal 
Pradesh during the period of emergency. However, 
One Shri Raj Nandan Singh was arrested under 
DISIR on December 9, 1975 and released on December 
15, 1975. He was allegedly found in possession of a 
banned publication 'Swaraj'. 



CHANDIGARH 

19.386 According to the information supplied by 
#xe Chandigarh Administration, the number of arrests 



and detentions is 1 the Union Territory of Chandigarh 
during the period of emergency are; — 



MISA 

COFEPOSA 

DISIR 



27 

I 

74 



19.387 Categorywise break-up of MISA eases 
is given below: — _ 

(0 Members or associates, of -banned ■ 

organisations . . . 6 



(//) Members or associates of Political 
Parties . . . . 

(Hi) Others ... 



15 
... ■ . -6 

The third category includes one person detained for 
his alleged involvement in immoral traffic in women, 
one for allegedly trading in intoxicating drugs- and 
pills, one alleged cheat and travelling agent and three 
alleged smugglers of opium and charas. 

BJS with 14 and RSS with 4 detentions account 
for 66 per cent of the detentions under MISA. 

19.388 Powers under MISA were used only from 
the 5th July 1975 onwards. It has been reported by 
the Chandigarh Administration in reply to the Com- 
mission's questionnaire that the list of persons consir 
dered necessary for detention under MISA was pre ; -- 
pared on July 4, 1975 keeping in view the instructions 
issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, vide their 
message No. 680/JS(SF)/75, dated June 26, 1975, 
advising the State Governments and Union Terri- 
tories to detain the influential and active elements 
of BJS and RSS under MISA. According to the 
information supplied by the Chandigarh Adminis- 
tration, 35 persons were arrested in connection with 
the emergency during the period from June 25 to June 
30, 1975—25 under section 107/151 Cr. P.C„ 5 under 
section 107/150 Cr. P.C. and 5 under section 188 
IPC and Rule 43 DIR. This included three leaders 
of RSS and 7 of BJS. MISA was not used at all 
against political elements after February 1976. In 
almost all the cases of political detentions, some im- 
mediate provocation is shown to have been caused 
to the administration by the detenus through their 
anti-emergency utterances. Most of them- were 
arrested first under 188 IPC for defying, the prohi- 
bitory orders imposed immediately after the promuN 
gation of emergency and then detained under MISA, 
Grounds of detention of these persons mention 
specific activities which were proximate to the time of 
their detention. 

19.389 The Administration restrained the District 
authorities from taking recourse to MISA to deal 
with problems which according to the administration 
could be handled by exercising powers available under 
the normal law. Files show that the SSP Chandigarh 
had sent, a proposal for the detention of 20 alleged 
criminals and anti-social elements* under MISA. 
The proposal was critically examined by the Legal 
Remembrancer in the light of the scope, of MISA, 
its legal requirements and the nature and gravity 



125 



oi the alleged prejudicial activities of the persons con- 
cerned. Thoroughness of this scrutiny can be asses- 
sed from the fact that only one case was approved 
and 19 were turned down by the Administration. 

A I9 -390 In ail the 27 cases of detention under the 
MISA in Chandigarh during the period of Emergency, 
the arrest was ordered by invoking Section 16A of 

■ the Act. No detenu was thus informed of the grounds 
of his detention. 4 detentions were made under the 
orders of the Chief Commissioner and 23 detention 
orders were issued by the District Magistrate, 
Chandigarh. All the detentions ordered by the Dis- 
trict Magistrate Chandigrah were confirmed by the 

" Chief Commissioner within the stipulated period of 
15 days. 

19.391 FOur-monthly reviews of MISA cases were 
conducted by a Committee with the Chief Com- 
missioner as Chairman and Home Secretary, District 
Magistrate, Chandigarh, SSP, Chandigarh and Legal 
Remembrancer, Chandigarh Administration, as mem- 
bers. This Committee used to meet from time to 
time and review the detentions in the light of the 
instructions issued by the Government "of India. 
The minutes of the deliberations of this Committee 
, were recorded by the Legal Remembrancer and put up 
to the Chief Commissioner for orders. Matters 
relating to grant of parole to the MISA detenus were 
■ - also decided by this Committee. The effectiveness 
of this Committee can be judged from the fact that 17 
, political detenus out of the total of 21 were released 
as a result of recommendations of this Committee. 
In a few cases, however, the Government of India 
did not readily agree with the recommendations of 
the Chandigarh Administration to release some 
political detenus whose cases had been reviewed by 
this Committee. Such persons were released only in 
January 1977 when the State Governments and Union 
Territories were allowed to review their cases in the 
light of the relaxation made in the measures of 
Emergency. This will be clear from the following: 

(/) The case of Shri Prem Sagar Jain of ' BJS 
detained on July 17, 1975 was reviewed in 
August 1976 and the Government of India 
was requested to accord approval for his 
release. The Government of India' turned 
down the proposal in September 1976 and 
instead advised the Chandigarh Adminis- 
tration to extend the period of parole already 
granted to Shri Jain. Detention order in 
respect of Shri Jain was revoked on January 
24, 1977 after the review of his case by the 
Chandigarh Administration in the light of the 
fresh instructions received from Government 
of India regarding release of political detenus. 

(it) Shri Surinder Mohan detained on December 
19, 1975 for his BJS/RSS activities was recom- 
mended for release by the Review Com- 
mittee and Government of India was 
requested on January 17, 1977 to accord 
approval for the same. File shows that the 
recommendation was based on an under- 
taking given by Shri Surinder Mohan on 
July 24, 1976 to the effect that he had resigned 
S/25 HA/78— 17 



from the BJS and would not join it 
again in future. The Central Government 
rejected the proposal of the Chandigarh 
Administration on January 26, 1977. Shri 
Mohan was released on March 22, 1977. 
Similarly the case of Shri Krishan Kumar 
Baweja of RSS recommended by the 
Chandigarh Administration was also turned 
down by the Ministry of Home Affairs and 
Shri Baweja was released only on March 22, 
1977 after revocation of Emergency. 

(iii) Shri Kishan Lai Manchanda, detained on 
July 17, 1975, was recommended for release by 
the Review Committee and Government of 
India was requested on October 30, 1976 
to accord approval for the same. No ap- 
proval was received from the Ministry of 
Home Affairs till January 17, 1977 when the 
Administration revoked the order on its own, 
after reviewing the case in the light of the 
fresh instructions from the Government of 
India. Similarly in the case of Shri Des 
Raj Tan don of BJS, no reply was received 
from the Government of India to the proposal 
for his release sent by the Chandigarh 
Administration on October 29, 1976 based on 
the review of his case. The Administration 
revoked this order after making a fresh re- 
view of the case on January 24, 1977. 

(iv) Shri Ram Swamp Sharma of BJS detained on 
August 14, 1975 was recommended for release 
by the Review Committee which met on 
October 4, 1976. A letter was written to the 
Ministry of Home Affairs on October 30, 
1976 seeking their approval for the release 
of Shri Ram Swarup. The Ministry of Home 
Affairs wrote back on January 3, 1977 advising 
the Administration to extend the period of 
parole of Shri Sharma instead of releasing ' 
him as he was a committed party worker of 
BJS. Chandigarh Administration revoked 
the order on January 13, 1977 after making 
..... a .fresh review in the, light of the- instructions 
from the Government of India to relax the 
rigours of Emergency and release the political 
detenus. 

19.392 The case of Shri Ravinder Sehgal, detained 
on July 17, 1975 on account of his BJS activities is 
also noteworthy. A representation for his release 
was made by his wife, Smt. Kamla Sehgal. This was 
received through the Ministry 'of Home Affairs. The 
Administration did not recommend the release of Shri 
Ravinder Sehgal but the Ministry of Home Affairs 
wrote on December 30, 1975 saying that— "It appears 
that he (Shri Ravinder Sehgal) was initially arrested 
on June 29, 1975 under section 188 of IPC for raising 
slogans against Emergency. In cases of this type the 
Administration could have secured conviction instead 
of detaining a person under MISA. As nothing 
adverse had come to the notice the Government has 
no objection to his release from detention." The 
Chandigarh Administration sent a TP message to the 
Home Ministry on January 23, 1976 saving that the 
detenu till then had not furnished any ^assurance re- 
garding severance of his connection with the political 



126 



activities. The Administration could, therefore, not 
consider his release in the light of. the guidelines 
issued by the Ministry of Horn* Affairs on October 
10, 1975. The Ministry of Home Affairs was asked 
to clarify whether Shri Sehgal could be released 
even without his furnishing the requisite bond. 
The Ministry of Home Affairs replied on March 27, 
1976 that Shri Sehgal need not be released without 
his executing the bond.- Shri Sehgal furnished the 
required assurance on July 13, 1976 and declared his 
support to the 20 point programme. Detention order 
was revoked on September 21, 1976 after obtaining 
the approval from the Ministry of Home Affairs. 

19.393 AH the political detenus had been released 
by the end of January 1977. 6 persons detained on 
account of their anti-social activities were also 
released on February 24, 1977 after reviewing their 
cases in the light of fresh instructions from the 
Government of India. There were only 4 detenu s-r- 
3 of R§S and one of Anand Marg, held in custody 

,. on March 21, 1977 when the emergency was revoked 
and their orders were cancelled. 

19.394 Scrutiny of MISA files of Chandigarh 
Administration has revealed that the Administration 
was very considerate to the detenus in the grant of 
parole. Almost all the political detenus were granted 
parole whenever their requests were found genuine. 
As per the replies received from the Chandigarh 
Administration to the Commission's questionnaire, 
there was only one significant case of refusal of parole 
and, the same is given! below : 

19.395 Shri Ram Swarup Sharma, a BJS leader 
of Chandigarh, was detained under MISA on August 
14, 1975. He applied on November 4, 1975 for parole 

' for 10 days on the ground of death of his father-in- 
law at Jammu on November 3, 1975. File shows 
that the District Magistrate Chandigarh had asked 
for the comments of the SSP Chandigarh on November 
4, 1975. The SSP Chandigarh wrote back on 
November 5, 1975 that "I understand there is no 
provision in MISA to release a detenu on parole. 
I have no objection for the release of Shri Ram Swamp 
on parole if there is any provision in MISA". SSP 
Chandigarh was evidently ignorant of the provision 
of temporary release of MISA detenus provided under 
section 15 of the Act. No actionappears to have been 
taken by the District Magistrate after the receipt of 
the above report from the SSP Chandigarh. Subse- 
quently, the Ministry of Home Affairs asked the 
Chandigarh Administration to give its comments on 
the following news item which had appeared in a 
Chandigarh newspaper: 

"Parole not granted even on death 
The father-in-law of Shri Ram Swarup 
Sharma, President, Chandigarh Jana Sangh, 
died on Diwali day. Shri Sharma 
applied for parole to participate iti the 
cremation and other mourning ceremo- 
nies. But release on parole was not allowed even 
though some friends of his showed willingness 
to furnish bail bonds to the extent of Rupees 
fifty thousand for securing release of Shri 
Sharma on parole. The callousness of the 
situation is apparent, from the fact that 



Shri Sharma was not given any information 
on his application for parole." 

19.396 The Chandigarh Administration asked 
the District Magistrate for a factual report. The 
District Magistrate, Chandigarh replied on February 
16, 1976, that— "the release on parole of Shri Ram 
Swarup Sharma son of Shri Mani Ram Sharma was 
rejected in view of the anti-Government and anti- 
emergency activities". 

19.397 Shri Ram Swarup Sharma applied for 
parole again on January 15, 1976, oh the ground of 
death of his brother-in-law who died at Bhatinda the 
same morning. The District Magistrate, Chandigarh 
asked for the comments of SSP Chandigarh on January 
16, 1976. The SSP Chandigarh forwarded on January 
22, 1976, the report of the Dy. SP saying that "Shri 
Ram Swarup Sharma, Advocate, is the President of 
BJS Chandigarh.. He has been detained under MISA 
since August 15, 1975, on account of his anti-eraer- 

-gency activities. Since BJS has not yet withdrawn its 
activities against the emergency, it does not seem 
advisable that he may be allowed to go on parole. 
The possibility of his meeting with anti-Government 
forces cannot -be ruled out. Grant of parole to him 
is, therefore, not recommended". District Magis- 
trate filed the case on January 28, 1976. No 
intimation seems to have been sent to the applicant 
regarding the decision on his request. It may tdso be 
mentioned that the power to grant parole vests with 
the "appropriate Government", which is the Chief 
Commissioner in the case of Union Territory of 
Chandigarh. The District Magistrate was not compe- 
tent to dispose of the request for grant of parole. at 
his own level. 



DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI 

19.398 According to the information furnished by 
the Administration, there were no detentions under 
MISA in the territory during the period of emer- 
gency. Two persons were detained under the 
COFEPOSA and three under the DTSIR. 



DELHI 

19.399 According to the information supplied by 
the Delhi Administration, the figures of arrests and 
detentions in. Delhi during the period of emergency 
are:— 



MISA . 

COFEPOSA 

DISIR 



1,012 

48 

2,851 



The subject has been covered in detail in Chapter X[ 
of the Second Interim Report of the Commission. 



127 



GOA ADMINISTRATION 

19.400 Total number of detentions ordered under 
MISA, DISIR and COFEPOSA in the territory was 
as below: 



MISA 

COFEPOSA 

DISIR 



113 

68 

Nil 



The break-up of detentions ordered under MISA 
is as follows: — 



RSS ■ . . . 

AnandMarg 

BJS 

Others including anti-socials & crimi- 
nals . 



8 
1 
9 

95 



Out of the total number of 113 persons detained under 
MISA, 10 were Pakistani nationals. No one be- 
longing to a political party other than BJS was de- 
tamed. There were no detentions of MLAs and 
MPs. 

19.401 In majority of cases the District Magis- 
trate passed the orders of detentions. There were 
some cases in which the Lt. Governor passed orders 
of detention on the basis of reports put up by the 
Home Department at the instance of Inspector General 
of Police and on the basis of discussions with the 
senior officers like Chief Secretary, Inspector General 
of Police, etc. It was noticed that the District 
Magistrate, Goa, only sent copies of detention order 
and declarations made by him to the State Govern- 
ment. He did not send any grounds of detention 
along with these copies. No separate report as re- 
quired under Section 3(3) of the MISA was sent by 
him to the Government. At the Government level, 
it was seen 'hat grounds of detention were sent sepa- 
rately by the SP to the Home Department. These 
were in the form of a dossier in which the life history 
Of the detenu was given right from the birth. Most of 
the details given in this dossier were irrelevant for 
the purposes of detention under MISA. Only in 
the concluding paragraph of the dossier, alleged 
objectionable activities of the person concerned 
were mentioned. However, in case of crimi- 
nals and anti-socials a list of several criminal cases 
in which the person was alleged to have been involved 
was given. This dossier as available in the files is 
an unsigned typed sheet. „ -It is -,■ therefore, not clear 
whether the SP had personally got this dossier pre- 
pared or simply forwarded ..it mechanically -.to the 
Administration. This dossier was apparently^ trea- 
ted as the grounds of detention. There was no 
scrutiny of cases by the Law Department. 

19.402 It is also not-clear on what basis the Dis- 
trict Magistrate used to pass the orders of detention 
because in his covering letter to the Government, 
he neither mentioned the grounds of detention, nor 
referred to any material which might have been 
produced by the . police before him. In the Home 



Department a note was put up mentioning briefly the 
activities stated in the dossier and it was submitted 
to the Lt. Governor through the Chief Minister, 
Goa. Being a Union Territory, the powers of con- 
firming detention under MISA were exercised by the 
Lt. Governor. In all cases the Administration con- 
firmed the orders of detention passed by the District 
Magistrate and there was no case in which the order 
of District Magistrate was not confirmed. 

19.403 As is clear from the break-up given in para 
I, there were very few detentions on political grounds 
in this Territory. BJS was the only political party 
whose 9 members were detained. Next came RSS 
with 8 detentions. In the case of these two, it was 
seen that most of tiie detentions were ordered on the 
ground of participating in Satyagraha of Lok 
Sangharsh Samiti on November 18, 1975. In some 
of the cases participation in Satyagraha was not 
alleged but it was mentioned that the detenu was a 
member of BJS/RSS; it was a, constituent of the Lok 
Sangharash Samiti and he was detained in order to 
prevent further agitation by the Samiti. 

19.404 Detention of 8 persons, seven alleged to be 
RSS activists and one alleged to be active Anand 
Margi were ordered directly by the Government. 
The note, dated July 4, 1975, of the Chief Secretary 
mentioned that the Government of India had issued 
a notification on July 3, 1975, making Rule 33 
of the DIR applicable to 4 organisations. The note 
went on to say: 

"In respect of RSS, there are certain 
branches but they are functioning under 
the direction of their headquarters at Ratnagiri. 
So far their activities are negligible and their 
influence over the people here is also consi- 
dered to be almost nil. This was the reason 
why we have not acted upon when message 
was received earlier. However as the 
Government of India has by Notification 
declared these organisations as illegal, there 
is no option but to take action to the extent 
necessary. Till Notification of Government 
of India was issued, they were not illegal 
organisations and they became illegal only 
thereafter and that there must be some mate- 
rial to prove that they are violating Rule 
33(3) of the DIR. It is not possible to find 
out what they could have exactly violated 
during the short period. It was therefore 
considered necessary that their detention orders 
may be issued under MISA and according 
to the Ordinance it is not necessary to give 
reasons for the detention and it is enough 
to make the declaration that their detention 
is necessary for effectively dealing with 
emergency. A draft has been prepared for 
ordering arrest of such persons." 

The note gives the names of 8 persons seven alleged 
to be RSS activists and one Anand Margi. The note 
does not reveal from where these names were obtained. 
This note further shows that the Government were 
fully aware that there was nothing objectionable on 
record against these persons and they were detained 



428 



; simply because they belonged to the banned organi- 
sation. The names of these 8 persons are as below: 

S/Shri v 

L DattaB.Naik 

2. Prakash Coulekar 

3. Yeshwant Dhon 

4. Bhasker Sapre " 

5. Gurud as Kashinath Bandekar 

6. Balkrishna S, Azfekar 

7. Anand Vinayak Chonekar ■ 

8. Avadhoot Asheshanand. 

19.405 The grounds mentioned in the dossier of 
these persons are, therefore, quite vague and insuffi- 
cient for the use of MISA. In the case of Kashinath 
Bandekar, a student, the activity mentioned was 
He was engaged in imparting Lathi dri% and other 
physical exercises to the Shakha members." In the 
case of Prakash Coulekar also, it was mentioned that 
he was imparting Lathi drill and took active part in 
organising a function for the RSS Chief, Shri Deoras 
on February 21, 1975. Similar general grounds, were 
mentioned in all the above cases. The grounds only 
revealed that they belonged to RSS and nothing more. 

19A06 In another case, 11 persons were detained 
directly under orders from the Government They 
included some RSS people as well as anti-socials The 
file reveals that- the Inspector General of Police 
brought 12 cases for detention and the matter was 
discussed at the Government level. The Home Depart- 
ment's note mentioned that the District Magistrate 
could also order their detentions but in order to reduce 
workload and avoid one stage, they considered it 
necessary to issue their detention orders directly. 

19.407 A number of persons were detained on 
grounds of criminal activities. Among them a lame 
percentage was that of Matka gamblers. Among 
other criminals were those against whom various 
offences ranging from theft, assault, etc., were alleged 
A majority of the cases of the criminal activities men- 

wkJSwa^Z*^ P e f taini *S to year 1972, 
1973 and 1974. The dossiers of these cases mentioned 
the criminal cases m which they had been involved in 
the past. Tn many cases of Matka gambling, no 
previous offence or conviction was shown and it was 
generally mentioned in the dossier that they harT 
mdulged m clandestine gambling business through 
agents and in such cases offences of gambling involv- 
ing the alleged agents were mentioned. But neither 
the names of agents were given nor any material was 
produced to show that they were really agents of the 

19 408 Shri M. P. P. Hassan was detained on the 
ground of running a gambling den and indulging in 
Matka gambling but in the dossier of detenu's activi- 
. ties, no offence was mentioned. It was m entioned only 
m general.terms that he had amassed wealth by illegal 
means and he was running a Matka den and was also 
carryingon Matka activities, but no incident was 
cited to support these allegations. 



19.409 Shri Francisco Xavier Fernandes was 
detained on December 4, 1974. In the dossier most 
of the cases of the Gambling Act pertaining to the 
year 1973-74 were mentioned and it was stated that 
though he had not been convicted in any case so far, 
5 cases were pending against him. 

19.410 Shri Champaklal B. Modasia and his 
cousin Shri B. D. Modasia were detained on May 22, 
1976. Their dossiers were identical. The dossiers 
gave a long history of their lives and activities but 
contained very little material to show any prejudicial 
activities. It was alleged that they, were acting in 
collusion and instigating the members of the Kharwa 
community to commit violent acts. But no incidents 
were mentioned. It was also alleged that they had 
supported the Janta Morchain Gujarat 1972 elections. 

19.411 Four-monthly review of detentions was 
undertaken by a Committee comprising the Chief 
Secretary as Chairman and Judicial Secretary, District 
Magistrate, Inspector General of 1 Police and Assistant 
Director of Intelligence Bureau, as members. The 
Committee submitted its recommendations to the Lt. 
Governor who passed final orders regarding conti- 
nuing detention or revocation of the detenus. No 
case came to notice in which the Review Committee's 
recommendations were not accepted. Views of the 
detaining authority were also obtained and consider- 
ed by the Review Committee. 

_ 19.412 All cases were put up to the Lt. Governor 
for passing orders on applications for release on 
parole. In their reply to the Commission's question- 
naire, the Goa Administration has mentioned that 
Review Committee used to consider- the cases from 
time to time. Those" who were stated to be less trouble- 
some were granted parole first and after watching 
their activities, the parole was extended from time 
to time. There were 53 cases in which the detenus 
detained in the earlier months of emergency were 
released on parole mostly after May, 1976, and this 
parole was continued till the final revocation of 
detentions in February or March, 1977. Among 
these, 5 belonged to the BJS, 4 belonged to RSS and 
the rest were anti-socials, mostly Matka gamblers 
They were granted long parole on the ground of their 
being comparatively less troublesome. In a few cases 
parole was not granted even on grounds of illness 
marriage or death of close relatives. 

19.413 Shri Francisco Xavier Fernandes, whose 
case has been referred to in para 19.409 of this report 
requested parole for one month to perform the 
obsequial ceremonies of his father who died on May 
4, 1976. The Home Department put up a note on 
his application stating that he is a Catholic and it is 
not obligatory for a son to perform any death rites of 
his father. Moreover, rites are performed by the 
priest within a day after the death. Therefore, at the 
most one week's parole may be granted. The, Chief 
Secretary noted on this, "The DM informed me that 
it becomes a problem involving expenditure on 
escorting the detenus." The request for parole was 
rejected. 



,-o. m ' : s 



129' 



19.414 Shri Urbano Almeida was detained On the 
ground Of bootlegging activities. He requested for 
parole for the marriage of his cousin sister and. it 
was mentioned that the girl had no brothers and the 
detenu was the only brother whose presence was 
necessary at the marriage. Home Department noted 
on September 3, 1976, "We have stopped giving parole 
for marriage." The request was rejected. Later, 
the detenu, again asked for parole on the ground of 
illness of his son. On this application, the report of 
District Magistrate was called for but it never came 
and no further action was taken on the request. 

19.415 Shri Jamnadas D. Sanglani detained on 
July 21, 1975, on grounds of involvement in Matka 
gambling, requested parole for performing the thread 
ceremony of his son. This was rejet ted on the ground 
that thread -csremOny is not so urgent. Later, his 
second request for parole to attend his sister's 
marriage was rejected on April 24, 1976, on the ground 
that parole for attending marriages had been stopped. 

19.416 Parole for attending weddings was stopped 
from the middle of 1976. No definite order about 
this is available. 

19.417 It was seen that parole was not refused in 
the cases of political detenus. 



LAKSHADWEEP 

19.418 According to the information furnished 
by the Administration, no detentions under MIS A, 
COFEPOSA and DISIR, were ordered during the 
period of emergency in this territory. 

MIZORAM 

191419 In reply to the Commission's question- 
naire on arrests and detentions during emergency, 
the following figures have been supplied by, the 
Government of Mizoram : — *' b? 



MISA 

COFEPOSA 
DISIR . 



70 

Nil 

136 



19.420 Catcgorywisc break-up of the MIS A cases 
is given below ; — 

(i) Members or Associates of banned 
parties , , . ... .Nil 

(ii) Members/ Associates of Political 
Parties . . . . .12 



(iii) Others 



58* 



The third category includes alleged economic offen- 
ders (30), members of Outlawed organisations, such 
as, MNF, MNA and their collaborators and other 
anti-social elements. There were two women and 
14 public servants among the detenus. 

19.421 One of the notatble features of detentions 
in Mizoram is that all the detention orders were issued 



by the State Government and powers under MISA 
were not exercised by the District Magistrates. On 
that account, no question of confirmation of detention 
orders by the State Government arose. It is also 
found that all the detentions, political as well as non- 
political, were ordered on the basis of recommenda- 
tions from the Inspector General of Police. 13 detenus 
out of the total of 70, were ordered under normal 
MISA and grounds of detention were communicated 
to the detenus concerned who were allegedly engaged 
in MNF activities. Two of these orders were revoked 
within. 8 : days. Remaining II cases were referred to 
the Advisory Board and all were upheld. 

19.422 Only 12 political workers/leaders, 5 of 
Mizo Democratic Front and 7 of People's Conference, 
which are the regional parties of Mizoram, were 
detained under MISA. It is also significant to note 
that these detentions were ordered in' May/ June, 1976, 
and no one had been detained on political grounds till 
then. The grounds of detention refer to the association 
of these persons with the underground organisa- 
tions. : 

19.423 30 persons, including 12 Government 
employees, were detained for the alleged commis- 
sion of economic offences. These persons were 
engaged in the transhipment of Government rice 
from Mizoram Civil Supply Godown, Stlchar, to 
various distribution centres in the State and had 
allegedly misappropriated huge quantities of rice 
causing hardship to the general public. 28 persons 
including two Government employees were detained 
for reasons of security of State. Grounds of detention 
show that these persons were allegedly lending active 
assistance to the underground organisations like 
MNF, MNA, etc. 

19.424 Given below are some of the cases of 
detention under MISA in Mizoram during the period 
of emergency ■': — 

(i) Shri Rothan Vunga* Administrative Officer 
of Vairengte was detained under the orders of 
the Lt. Governor, Mizoram, dated May 13, 
1976, for ihis alleged collaboration with the 
MNF elements. Information regarding his 
alleged anti-natioiial activities had been recei- 
ved from the interrogation of one Shri Dinga 
son of Shri Rual Thankunia. Another person 
mimed Shri Lai Sanglura was also detained 
along with Shri Rothan Vunga on the basis of 
the same information* These orders were 
issued under normal MISA and grounds of 
detention were communicated to the detenus. 
Smt. Rokungi, mother of Shri Rothan Vunga, 
sent a petition on May 17, 1976 pointing out 
certain discrepancies in the grounds of deten- 
tion. The file was put up to the Lt. Governor 
who recorded the following note on May 19, 
1976 :— ; 

"This .case was not properly scrutinised 
in the Home Department. The grounds 
of detention have been mixed up with; 
one meant for Lai Sanglura has, bqen 
served on Rothan Vunga. This case will; 



130 



not stand the scrutiny by the Advisory 
Board. The detention order should be 
cancelled immediately. Thereafter, we 
may consider serving a fresh order on 
Shri Lai Sanglura. Regarding Shri 
Rothan Vunga it perhaps may not be 
necessary to resort to MISA as he can 
be dealt with departmentally." 

The order m respect of both of them was 

revoked on May 21, 1976. The inspector 

General of Police was asked to send a report 

on the activities of Rothan Vunga who was a 

Government servant. The Chief Secretary 

recorded on June 19, 1976 that the allegations 

against him based on a secret intelligence 

report, were not likely to permit normal 

disciplinary action and it was, therefore, 

decided to consider action under Article 

3ll(2)(c) of the Constitution. A report from 

the Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau was called. 

The Assistant Director SIB wrote to the Chief 

Secretary on June 30, 1976 saying that "We 

have no information regarding the prejudicial 

activities of the above individual". In view of 

of this report from the Central Intelligence 

agency functioning in Mizoram, action under 

Article 311(2)(c) against Shri Rothan Vunga 

was, therefore, not initiated. 

(ii) Shri Lallianzuala Salo of the Peoples Con- 
ference was detained under the orders of Tt. 
Governor Mizoram dated June 2, 1976. It 
was mentioned in the grounds of detention 
that he had joined Mizo National Front 
in 1965 and a case under section 121 LP.C. 
was registered against him in 1968. He was 
elected the General Secretary of Human 
Rights Committee in 1974 (this Party was 
later converted into the Peoples Conference). 
It was further mentioned that he had written 
an article on February 14, 1975 alleging that 
the grouping of villages in Mizoram was res- 
ponsible for the shortage of food. No more 
details of his activities, political or otherwise, 
from February 1975 to the time of his deten- 
tion in June 1976 were given. He remained 
under detention in March 22, 1977. 

(iii) Shri Hranga son of Shri Lianpuka. was 
detained under the orders of Lt Governor, 
Mizoram dated December 31, 1975. Grounds 
of detention show that on the basis of a com- 
plaint dated August 24, 1974 from the Deputy 
Director, Supply arid Transport, Mizoram, a 
case under section! 407 I.P.'C was registered 
against Shri Hranga for alleged misappropria- 
tion of Government rice. It was further men- 
tioned that on September 16, 1975 Shri Hranga 
had admitted before the trying Magistrate 
that he had disposed of certain quantities of 
rice in violation of the terms of his contract. 
He was detained under MISA on the basis of 
this case and remained under detention till 
March 23, 1977. 

(iv) Shri Ngurliana son of Shri Lalchhuna, a 
contractor, was detained on August 7, 1975. 



The grounds of detention mentioned that he 
had drawn 500 quintals of Government rice. 
from Mizoram Civil Supply Godown, Silchar, 
but deposited 369.22 quintals at Bairadi Rice 
Godown and misappropriated the balance. 
He was detained under MtSA on the basis 
of this single case and remained under deten- 
tion till March 25, 1977. 

19.425 In accordance with the instructions issued 
from the Ministry of Home Affairs on October .10, 
1975, a State level Committee of the following 
composition was constituted on December 3, 1975 
for the review of detention cases: — 

(i) Chief Minister, Mizoram . . . Chairman 

(ii) Chief Secretary or iii his absence 

Secretary (Home) . . . Member 

(iii) Law Secretary . . . Member 

(iv) SP Special Branch (CiD),. . Member 

■*; _ (v) It. Asstt. Director, SIB . . Member 

1 9.426 The Joint Assistant Director, SIB, was 
soon withdrawn from the Committee under the advise 
of the Home Ministry. This Committee held. 10 
meetings during the period from December 6, 1975 to 
November 16, 1976 for conducting the four-monthly 
reviews of the MISA detenus. Records show that the 
Committee could not function formally after Novem- 
ber 16, 1976 mainly because of the pre-occupation of 
the Chief Minister with other matters and the reviews 
were conducted on he basis of examination of the 
cases in the Home Department. Proceedings of these 
meetings clearly indicate that the general policy 
of the Administration was not to consider any release 
and order the continued detention of all the detenus 
whenever their cases came up for review. Only one 
detenu named Shri H. Zalemthanga, a Store Keeper 
of Supply and Transport Department detained on 
August 20, 1975, was released as a result of reviewjof 
his case by this committee on November 16, 1976. 
The Government of India through its instructions on 
October 10 3 1975 had asked the State Governments ■ 
and Union Territories to consider the release of such 
political detenus who regretted their past activities 
and were prepared to give assurance for their good 
behaviour in future. Files of Smt. Sanglianchhungi 
(MDF) and J. Kathianga (Peoples Conference) show 
that they had represented that their parties had 
nothing to do with the MIZO National Front and 
assured the Government of their good behaviour in 
future. Despite this their continued detention was 
confirmed at the time of every periodical review and 
they were released only after the Emergency was 
lifted. 

19.427 Files show that instead of granting parole 
Lo the ailing detenus, arrangements for their treatment 
in some good Government Hospital in Assam used to 
be made. It Is seen from a communication dated 
August 3, 1976 from Government of Mizoram to the" 
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, 
that none of the 5 1 detenus detained under the 



131 



emergency provisions, till then had been granted any 
parole. It appears that the Government was not 
very favourably inclined to the grant of. parole to 
detenus as .should be evident from the following 
illustrations : — 

■(f) Shri Vanei son of Lai Rema, a driver, detained 
, on November 24, 1975 for alleged misappro- 
priation of Government rice, sent a petition on 
June 2, 1976 for grant of parole oh the ground 
of illness of his father aged 60 years under- 
going treatment in a Hospital. During the 
intervening period, the detenu's cousin 
brother died on August 14, 1976 and his father 
died on September 24, 1976 as is evident from 
the relevant file. On the basis of a note dated 
September 25, 1976 sent from the Personal 
Assistant to the Chief Minister to the Secre- 
. tary (Home), conveying the orders of the 
Chief Minister to release Shri Vanei, he was 
granted 3 days parole on September 28, 1976 
to attend to the funeral rites of his father. His 
request for extension of parole was turned 
down on the basis of the reecommendations of 
the SP CID Special Branch. The report from 
the Special Branch confirmed the death of the 
detenu's father and also mentioned that 
his cousin and not the real brother had died 
on August 14, 1976. 

(ii) Smt. K. Zpdingliani, sister of Smt. Sanglian- 
chhungi, President, Mizo Democratic Front, 
detained on May 9, 1976,-sent-an application 
- on November" 22, 1976 requesting for the 
release of her sister on the ground of her ill 
health. Smt. Sangliahchhungi also sent an 
application on December 18, 1976 requesting 
the Government to release her on parole as 
she needed special care in view of her illness. 
The Medical Officer had also endorsed on the 
application that though the detenu was being 
treated at Civil Hospital Aizawl, the progress 
was not satisfactory. The file does not show 
how these applications were processed butat 
is clear that she was not granted parole. 

(iii) Shri Lalianzuala Salo of the Peoples .Con- 
ference Party was detained on June 2, 1976. 
His wife sent a petition on November 17, 
1976 requesting for grant of parole to her 
husband who had undergone an operation 
at Gauhati Medical College and needed 
special care for quick recovery. File shows 
that she had sent a petition on August 27, 
1976 also requesting for his release on the 
ground of illness of his sister who was 65 years 
old. Her request was turned down by the Chief 
Secretary who recorded the following note 
on, November; 18, 1976 : — 

"Currently no cases are being considered 
for parole." 

Mrs. Said was informed on December 9, 1976 
that Government regretted its inability to 
consider her request for the release of her 
husband. • 



(iv) Smt. Biakmawii w/o Shri J. Kapthianga, 
a detenu of Peoples' Conference Party de- 
tained on June 3, 1976, sent a petition on 
October 5, 1976 requesting for release of 
her husband on the ground of her illness. 
The family doctor Shri R. Tlangkunga of 
Aizawl Civil Hospital had certified that she 
: was having recurrent attacks of appendicitis 
and was to be operated upon. She had men- 
tioned in her petition that there was no male 
adult member in the family except her hus- 
band. The Chief Secretary, Mizoram recorded 
on October 23, 1976 that "we have not given. 
such temporary release in any case so far," 
and the petition was rejected by the Lt. 
Governor. Another application from the 
detenu dated December 8, 1976 on the same 
ground was also rejected. His wife submitted 
another petition to the Chief Minister on 
December 15, 1976 saying that she could not 
g&t herself operated unless her husband was 
released on parole. Lieutenant Governor 
recorded on the file that the Chief Minister 
■ has spoken to him regarding this case. He 
asked for the details like dates of operation, 
likely period of hospitalisation, and instruc- 
tions from the Government of India in such 
cases. These details were collected. The Chief 
Secretary forwarded the file to the Lieutenant 
Governor with the following endorsement, 
"Mizoram Administration do not consider 
such release to anyone on parole in view Of 
the prevailing situation". He further wrote 
that "if a departure is made in the. instant 
case, it would be difficult to avoid similar 
requests from the large number of detenus 
also". The case was rejected by the Lieute- 
nant Governor on January 12, 1977. The 
detenu sent another petition on January 18, 
1977 requesting for parole to look after his 
ailing wife and take care of his youngest 
sister who was suffering from cancer. As 
per the certificate of the jail doctor, the 
detenu's health was also in bad condition. The 
Chief Secretary recorded on February 19, 
1977 that "At this juncture such request 
cannot be accepted. In other cases also 
we have been unable to release detenus on 
such grounds. His own treatment will be 
arranged in the Hospital' \ The file was sent 
to the Lt. Governor who recorded that "CM 
spoke to me about the case of Shri 
J. Kapthianga. We may consider his request 
for a short parole after the election." Shri 
Kapthianga was released on March 22, 1977 
after the emergency was lifted. 

(v) Shri V. VuIIuia of the Peoples Conference 
detained on June 11, 1976, applied for parole 
on April 20, 1976 to enable him to take M.A. 
(Previous) Examination from Gauhati Univer- 
sity. He was informed on August 6, 1976 that 
his request was rejected. He was then in 
Nallabari Jai) in Assam. He sent a telegram 
on August 12, 1976 requesting for grant of 
parole so that he may take examination- 
Lieutenant Governor queried oh the telegram 



132 



"Is this permissible and practicable 9 " It 
was examined by the Chief Secretary who 
wrote on the file that "It was not practicable 
to hold examination at Nallabari Jail nor 
. was it desirable to give parole for this pur- 
pose." Shri Vulluia could not appear in the 
Examination. : 

(vi) Shri Ngursarlova, a Constable of Special 
Branch of Police, was detained on November 
Tilfl? 75 for *»* .alleged connections with the 
MNF. His wife sent a petition on February 
Tl, 1977 requesting for the release of her 
husband on the ground that their youngest 
daughter had expired on January S, 1977 
The President, Village Council, Vaivakawn' 
Mr. P. V. Rosanga also wrote to the Chief 
Secretary on February 10, 1977 in this 
connection. The file shows that the detenu 
had sent a telegram from Jail requesting 
fc< grant of parole and it was received in the 
Home Department on January 11,* 1 977 
The Home Department asked the Inspector 
General of Police on January 21 1977 to 
verify the fact regarding the death 
. of his daughter. No reply was received 
from the Inspector Genera! of Police till 
March 10, 1977 when the third reminder was. 

^ SUe A%7 he ?' R CID sent a re P° rt on March 
.10, 1977 saying that "On inquiry the state- 
ment of the detenu was found to be correct 
The age of the child who died was 1 1 months 
His wife and other children were living in 
normal life and parole was not recommended ■" 
Parole was not granted. 

(vii) Smt. Lalmuthangi w/o Shri Rokhuma was 
detained on November 9, 1976 for alleged 
misappropriation of rice belonging to the 
Government. Her father a retired Subedar 
sent a petition on February 7, 1977 requesting 
for three days parole to her daughter with 
effect from February 10, 1977 to enable her 
to attend the wedding of her youneer sister 
fixed for February 11,1 977. ft wa^recorded 
on the file at the processing level that the State 
Government was competent to grant parole 
for periods not exceeding three months without 
any clearance from the Central Government 
The Chief Secretary turned down the request 
on February 9, 1977 after recording that 
"We have so far given parole only in case of 
. death of a very close relative. It may be diffi- 
cult to grant parole for marriages etc." 

(viii) Shri Laipirthanga, a driver detained on 
August 20, 1975 for alleged misappropriation 
of nee belonging to the Government, applied 
for parole on June 1, 1976 on the ground 
of illness of his wife who had delivered her 
fourth child in May. The file shows that the 
Deputy Inspector General (Prisons) forwarded - 
this application to the Home Department on 
September 20, 1976. The Home Department 
took more than one month and sent this peti- 
tion to the SP CID for comments on October 
29, 1976. SP CID replied on November 25, 
1976 that the wife of the detenu and children 



were then Jiving with his elder brother and 
parole was not recommended. The applica- 
tion was accordingly rejected. 

PONDICHERRY 

19.428 The total number of persons de^in^d 
under MISA, DISIR and other Preventive Lxws was 
as follows : 



MISA 
DTSIR 
COFEPOSA 



54 

63 

6 



19.429 Th? total number of detentions ordered by 
invoking th? provisions of Section 16A of the MfSA 
was 54. Out of thes% 2 persons were detained twice 
during me period of emergency 'and one remained 
aoicon -img. Thus actually 51 persons were detained 
under MISA. The break-up is as, follows : 

^.Members and associates of poli- 
tical parties . 



Members and associates 
banned organisations 



of 



Economic offenders, 
and Others 



criminals 



37 



2 (CPIML) 



12 



19.430 Amongst those detained on account of 
political activities, the largest number was of members 
and associates of the AEADMK (15). Only two. 
.persons belonging to CPIML were detained and no' 

me J mb w T o f . RSS ' JEI or Anand Marg. was "detained 
under MISA. 

xatI a' 43 L 9 ut of the 51 P ersons detained under 
MISA, the State Government did not confirm the 
declarations issued ( under Section 16 A(3) in respect 
of 22, The remaining 29 persons. were also not kept 
in detention for long and all the detenus were released 
before they completed 6 months in detention, as will 
be revealed from the following break-up :— 



(i) Persons detained for less than one 
month . , . ' 

(ii) Persons detained for a period bet- 
ween one and 2 months 

(iii) Persons detained for a period bet- 
ween 2 and 3 months . 

(iv) Persons detained for a period bet- 
ween 4 and 5 months . 

(v) Persons detained for a period bet- 
ween 5 and 6 months 



24 

12 

4 

7. 



19.432 Orders of detention, at the District level 
were passed by Additional District Magistrate, Pondi- 
cherry, who had been delegated the powers 'to pass 
orders under the MISA. At the Government level 
a Screening Committee comprising' the Chief Secre- 
tary, Law Secretary and District Magistrate Pondi- 
cherry, was constituted. All cases of detentions under 



133 



MISA received from the Additional District Magis- 
trate were screened by this screening Committee before 
being submitted to the Lieutenant Governor for, con- 
firmation of the detention orders. The Screening 
Committee recommended revocation of orders re- 
garding detention of ordinary criminals on the basis of 
instructions of Government of India advising against 
the use of MISA in such cases. Apologies tendered 
by detenus also received favourable consideration in 
many cases. In most cases the Lieutenant Governor 
accepted the recommendations of the Screening 
Committee. However, in the case of K.P. 
"Lakshmanan, an authorised dealer in rice and paddy 
detained on July 2, 1975, on the ground that in Septem- 
ber 1974, on being given N.O.C. for importing 120 
tonnes of rice to Pondicherry he did not import the 
full quota and disposed of some rice outside Pondi- 
cherry, the Screening Committee recommended his 
release on August 1, 1975 but the Governor ordered 
continuation of his detention staling that he had 
committed a gross offence. He also ordered further 
secret inquiries to be made regarding his conduct. 
Police report was called for which revealed that detenu 
was not involved in any criminal case previously. 
The Screening Committee again recommended his 
release on September 29, 1975 which was accepted by 
the Lieutenant Governor. 

19.433 S/ShriT. K. Arumugam and M. Arumu- 
. gam were detained under MISA on October 17, 

1975 under the orders of the Additional District 
Magistrate Pondicherry. The grounds of detention 
mentioned that they were running a confectionery 
manufacturing unit and were using a non- edible 
poisonous compound in the manufacture of confec- 
tioneries. The Screening Committee mentioned that 
in accordance with the instructions of Government 
of India, such detentions will not be proper within 
the existing frame-work of MISA and their detentions 
were not confirmed. ..... .. : ^.. w . ; .. . ..... ,.... v „,-.... 

19.434 Keshvan Gounder, and 9 others, all 

workers in the 3 textile mills in Pondicherry, were 
detained by the Additional District Magistrate cm 
November 27, 1975 and November 28, 1975 -on the 
ground that they were associated with the trade 
union in the textile mills and had protested against 
Jhe bonus ordinance of the Government. They also 
incited the workers to agitate against the Government 
and indulged in anti-government propaganda amongst 
the workers. The State Government files reveal that 
the Lieutenant Governor discussed their cases with the 
Collector, Law Secretary and the Inspector General of 
Police who reported that the situation in the mills 
was returning to normalcy. The detenus also submit- 
ted written apologies on December 9, 1975. Hence 
their detention orders were not confirmed; by the State 
Government. 

19.435 It was seen that many detenus, both politi- 
cal and non-political, tendered written apologies within 
1 5 days of their detention, assuring that they would not 
indulge in any activity prejudicial to the security of the 
State, and the Screening Committee recommended 
revocation of their detention orders. Their detentions 
were accordingly not confirmed by the Lieutenant 

S/25 HA/78— 18 ■ ,' 



Governor. (Cases of S/Shri S. Muthu and M.A. 

Shanmugam). 

19.436 It was seen that ground;? of detention 
were furnished to the Union Territory Administration 
by the Additional District Magistrate along with the 
copy of detention orders and declarations under 
Section 16A(3) issued by him. The copy of report 
received from the Police regarding the prejudicial 

< activities of the detenu were also sent to the Adminis- 
tration. In the case of political persons, the grounds 
generally mentioned some past activities such as talking 
part in processions against the government prior to ■ 
the declaration of emergency and further mentioned 
that after proclamation of emergency the detenu was 
seen going from place to place condemning emergency 
and inciting the people to rise against the Government. 
But in many cases, no specific incident with regard to 
the above activity was cited. 

19.437 In a majority of cases pertaining to detenus 
associated with political parties. the grounds of deten- 
tion reveal that they had been indulging in anti-social 
activities like smuggling, creating industrial instability 
and labour unrest. S/Shri Radhakrishnan, ADMK, 
Moris Beson, ADMK, Murugan CPIM and 9 others 
said to be associated with different -political parties 
were detained in April 1976. Grounds of their deten'-. 
tion revealed that they were found criticising the emer-' 
gency and the Prime Minister and also opposed the : 
bonus policy of the Government and created unrest 
in the Industries. In the case of Shri Soundraraugan, . 
Ex-DMK MLA, grounds of detention mentioned that 
he along with, his gang of rowdies, created disturbance . 
at the 'Fire Walking Festival' on May 19, 1975 and 3 
cases of paddy smuggling were registered against* his 
servants. 

19.438 There were very few cases in which the 
■"grounds of detention revealed only political activity. 

19.439 Three Government servants were detained 
under MISA— Shri M. Sivaraj, Head Clerk in Pondi- 
cherry Cooperative Milk Producers* Union, was 
detained on July 7, 1 976 on the ground that he was 
promoting unrest among the workers and had also 
misappropriated huge amounts of this Society. Shri 
G.C.M. Balamohanan, LDC in the office of the Regis- 
trar, Cooperative Society and Shri M. Subramanian, f 
Teacher in Government Primary School were detained 
on October 14, 1976 on account of association with 
CPIML. 

19.440 No student or journalist was detained 
under the MISA. 

19.441 Only 12 persons not connected with any 
political activity were detained under MISA-on the 
grounds of being anti-socials and criminals. Out of 
these, 6 persons were detained on the ground of 
cheating by professing to double the currency. 
Grounds mentioned in most of their cases gave a 
detailed account of their cheating practices, but the 
offences mentioned against them pertained to the years 
1973-74. No recent criminal offence was mentioned. 
Some persons were detained for indulging in rice and 
paddy smuggling. 



134 



. 19.442 The review of the detention cases was done 
by the Screening Committee but the question of 
statutory four-monthly review did not arise in respect 
of more than half of the detention cases as these cases 
were^reyiewed earlier and the detenus were released 
before 4 months. The cases of detenus were reviewed 
by the Screening Committee as and when representa- 
tions were received frcm them against their detention. 
It was seen that most of the detenus made such 
representations shortly after their detention, 

; 19.443 In reply to. the Commission's question- 
naire, the Administration has informed that in 7 cases 
parole was granted to the detenus and there was no 
case in. which request for parole by a detenu was 
rejected by the Administration. The Administration 
has mentioned : 

"On the recommendation of the Screening 
Committee, grant of parole was sanctioned to 
the detenus. In many cases, grant of parole 
was sanctioned to enable the detenus to look 
after sick family members and to enable them 
to perform special family functions etc. V 

M. Sivaraj (A Government servant) was granted parole 
for 7 days on account of the Dipawali Festival on an 
application- by his wife. Since most of the detenus 
did not remain in detention for long, the requests for 
parole were naturally fewer. 

19,444 Figures of arrests and detentions in vari- 
ous States and Union Territories during the period of 
emergency are tabulated in the Annexure attached to 
this Chapter. 



1 



ANNEXURE 




TO CHAPTER XIX 




Arrests and Detentions in 
Territories during 


various States/Union 
emergency 


SI, Name of State/ 
No. Union Territory 


Detentions 

under 
MISA 


Arrests 

under 

DISIR 


1 2 


3 


4 


1. Andhra Pradesh 


1135 


451 


2. Assam . . 


.533 


2388 



3.. Bihar . 

4. Gujarat . 

5. Haryana 

6. Himachal Pradesh . 

7. Jammu & Kashmir . 

8. Karnataka 

9. Kerala . 

10. Madhya Pradesh 

11. Maharashtra . 

12. Manipur 

13. Meghalaya 

14. Nagaland 

15. Orissa . 
16/ Punjab . 

17. Rajasthan . :.....» 

18. Sikkim . . . 

19. Tamil Nadu . . 

20. Tripura . 

21. Uttar Pradesh 

22. West Bengal , 

23. Andaman & Nicobar 
Islands . 

24. Aiunachal Pradesh . 

25. Chandigarh . 

26. Dadra & Nagar Haveli 

27. Delhi . 

28. Goa, Daman & Diu . 

29. Lakshadweep 

30. Mizoram 

31. Pondicherry . 

Total . 



2360 


7747 


1762 


26,43 


200 


1079 


34 


654 


466 


311 


487 


4015 


790 


7134 


5620 


2521 


5473 


9799 


231 


228 


39 


.20 


95 


4 


408 


762 


440 


2423 


542 . 


1352 


■ 4 


— 


1027 


1644 


77 


99 


6956 


24781 , 


" 4992 


2547 - 


41 


88 
1- 

74 


V 


— 


3 


1012 


2851 


113 


— 


70 


136 


54 


63 


34988 


75818 



CHAPTER XX 



Conditions in jails in India, with special reference to treatment of persons arrested under the DISIR or 

Detained under the &3SA, etc. 



20.1 In the Second' Interim Report of the 
Commission (paragraph 15.23) it was indicated that 
the officers of the Commission would be visiting 
some" of the jails in the country and a separate 

• Chapter will be included in the report. 

20.2 The first comprehensive study of the prob- 
lems of Jails in India was made by the Indian 
Jails Committee in 1919-1920. Keeping reformation 
and rehabilitation of offenders as the ultimate 
objectives of imprisonment, the Committee identi-r 
fied the problems besetting the Jails and had 
suggested certain jail reforms. After Independence, 
the subject was again examined in 1952 at the 
national level by_Dr^Walter-G.- Reckless, who came 
to- India under the United Nations Technical 
Assistance Programme. Several Committees were 
appointed' by different State Governments ■ after 
Independence to examine the problem of, jail 
reforms. In 1959, a model Prison Manual was for- 
mulated on the basis of the recommendations of the 
All India Jail Manual Committee appointed by the 
Government of India in 1957. The observations in 
regard to the conditions in jails made in the report 
of the Working Group on Prisons 1972-73 appoin- 
ted by the Government of India, Ministry of Home 
Affairs, continue to be relevant even today. The 
Working Group observed as follows : — 

"The prison administration in the. country 
is generally in a depressive stage. Most 
of. the prisons are heavily overcrowded. 
Convicts and under-trials are lodged in 
the same institution throughout the coun- 
try. Adults, adolescents, juveniles, women 
and lunatics are also' generally confined 
in the common institution and there is a 
serious lack of separate institutions for 
these various categories of prisoners. . . . 
There is a little coordination between '""the" 
prison and correctional services and 
. many more persons are sent to prisons 
than need to even under the laws in force 
in the country, it is obvious that the 
entire system calls for a thorough over- 
haul and many pronged reforms." 

20.3 On January 1, 1975, the total population 
in the Indian jails was 2,20,146 as against a total 
capacity of 1,83,369'. Out of these 2,20,146, the 
number of under-trial prisoners was 1,26,772. In 
many prisons juveniles are housed along with 
adults and' there are no facilities in the jail hospitals 
for. specialised treatment of prisoners. The study 
undertaken by the Working Group on Prisons in 
1972-73 revealed that the States in which the daily 



average population in 1970 was more than the 
capacity were Andhra Pradesh (15,361 as against 
9,097), Assam (6,583 as against 4,846), Bihar 
(36,937 as against 19,334), Madhya Pradesh 
(13,673 as against 10,402), Maharashtra (18,186 
as against 15,901), Nagaland (850 as against 
260), Orissa (6,740 as against 5,716), Uttar 
Pradesh (36,918 as against 34,879) and West 
Bengal (22,309 as against 20,119). 

20.4 A number of prison buildings are 75 to 
100 years old. They are ill-equipped, ill-furnished 
and without proper ventilation or sanitation and 
with insufficient water supply arrangements. The 
architecture of the existing buildings caters mainly 
to the custodian requirements with no proper 
facilities for classification, individualised care, 
education, recreation, training or reformative treat- 
ment. All types of casual and habitual offenders 
are generally lodged in the same institution with 
very little scope for diversifying the institutional 
approach in terms of maximum, medium and mini- 
mum security. The prison structure provides- little 
scope for specialisation in dealing with under-trial 
prisoners, juvenile delinquents, young offenders, 
women prisoners, mentally sick and diseased pri- 
soners. There is no separate arrangement for 
custody of persons detained under the Preventive 
Detention Legislation. 

20.5 The declaration of emergency aggravated 
a situation, which was already bad, in terms of 
capacity for accommodation and the infrastructure 
for looking after the prisoners/detenus. At no time 
since Independence was such a large scale deten- 
tion of senior and respected leaders ' ordered 
simultaneously all over the country and no notice 
whatever was given to the authorities concerned 
for being prepared to" receive the large influx of 
respected leaders 'as detenus. Except in a very 
few cases, no separate arrangements by way 
of houses/guest-houses '.were set apart for 
accommodating detenus. A large number Of 
those who were detained, were fairly 
advanced in age and many of them were in need 
of constant and specialised medical attention for 
which the jail hospitals were totally ill-equipped*. 
In fact, except in the matter of food, some extra 
clothing and reading material, the detenus under 
the Maintenance of Internal Security Act were 
lodged in no better condition than the other inmates 
in the jails, completely oblivious of the concept 
that preventive detention is not punitive detention 
and the detenus are not to be treated like convicts. 
The Commission urges the Government of India 



135 



136 



to take special and effective steps urgently to look 

T fitS***" iQ ^ jaUs ™ ^Iffortao treat 
2?'S2ff* m a manner ^ich is compatible with 

i^ot^nt C ° nCePt ° n the re ^ive aspects * 

20.6 The, subject of prisons and the nJliM 
institutions is a State subject. It appears to have 
rained excluded from the developmental plans 

SriVS^SF* reC ' ently " Paucit y of funds* h" 
-SSLS sm 5 ! . measure responsible for the un- 

sVanS T at £ ^ reforms - Th ? Commission under- 
stands that in, a paper recently submitted bv the 

taT hiT ute °^ Socia ^ Be * ence ** 2«3ftj£ 

wdm^t^^^ 8 ™' the totaI financia l 
Jn^l £^ i t0t var °us aspects of prison develop- 
ffi 1 ^ ^ n estimated to be Rs. 190 crores 
The Commission hopes that the Central and' the 
^Governments will take adequate steps m this 

to 2 £i 7 th?%£T mksi0 ?- ^'^ a questionnaire 
10 all the States .requesting information on certain 
relevant, topics. The following States and Union 
Territories supplied the information :— 

(1) Andhra Pradesh. 

(2) Gujarat. 

(3) Haryana. 

;;(4) Himachal Pradeshv 
(5) Karnataka. 
C6) Kerala. 

(7) Madhya Pradesh. 

(8) Maharashtra. 

(9) Manipur. 

(10) Meghalaya. 

(11) Nagaland*. 

(12) Orissa. 

(13) Punjab. 

(14) Rajasthan. 

(15) Sikkim. 

(16) Tamil Nadu. 

(17) Tripura. 

(18) Uttar Pradesh. 

(19) West Benagal. 

(20) Arunachal Pradesh. 

(21) Andaman & Nicobar Islands. 

(22) Chandigarh. 

(23) Dadra & Nagar Haveli. 

(24) Delhi. 

(25) Goa, Daman & Diu. 

(26) Lakshadweep. 

(27) Mizoram. 

(28) Pondicherry. 

20.8 The notes given hereafter in reeard to the 
conditions of the jails in the different States are 
on the basis of the answers received from the 



ifStiff ^ G ? V f nmentS to .■ the questionnaire, 
i ,kf w'i he mi ? im&tl ™ contained in the notes 
^ also based on observations made by the Com- 

TuTrn °? Cia - S ' Wh V isited J ails in di ^nt pa£ 

studi of thl y - m i an C ^ t0 make an on-theSpoc 
study of the jail conditions. Effort has been 

as factual as possible and shorn of any comments 
Whatever except recording a few suggestion? for 
the. consideration of the Government The exer- 
cise has been undertaken entirely with a view to 
focusing the; attention of the Government at the 
Centreand in the States on the crying need for 
improving the prevailing conditions in the jails 
and not by way of criticism of any particular ail 
administration or the State, or the "conduct of any 
person— named or unnamed. ■ 

ANDHRA PRADESH 

;^°' 9 f I h 5u aut tl ori J sed acc °mmodation in all the 
&£ of Andhra Pradesh as on June 25, 1975, was' 

n£lh- mCludin £ °P en Air JaiIs > while the actual 
population on that day was 5,885. Therefore there 
was hardly any space for the detenus, who were 
taken into custody during the emergency. 

nrc?o ° The to j al "umber of arrests under MISA 
follows:- g * e emer § enc y was as 



MISA 
DISIR 
COFEPOSA 



1,135 

451 
45 

1,631 



^4. 20.11 Additional accommodation was provided 
• >i ? e - J eten . us b ^ converting portions of certain 
jail, building mto wards. Facilities like fans, lava- 
tones, bath-rooms, etc. were provided for the 
comfort of the detenus. The detenus- were generally 
kept separate from other prisoners. However, some 
of those categorised as 'C Class detenus (who 
were mostly economic offenders, etc.) were kept 
along with ordinary prisoners. 

20.12 Initially all MISA detenus were classified 

SlS?/- ? PeC iI al CI 1 aSS '- The y were subsequently 
divided into three classes. Class ( A' : Members of 

Parliament or State Legislatures or . prominent 

political leaders, who were not detained on account 

of economic offences. Class <B' : detenus not 

aetamed for the commission of economic offences 

but not coming under the above category. Class 

C : All other detenus and those detained for 

economic offences were treated in Class *C' 

Detenus under COFEPOSA and persons arrested 

under the DISIR were treated in Class 'C. 

cJm detenu was put in soIite ^ 



137 



20.14 No detenu is reported to have died while 
tinder detention* or shortly after 7 release from 
detention. 

20.15 It is seen from, some of the jail records 
that extra* expenditure was incurred on account of 
medical facilities made available to the detenus 
and other prisoners. 213 detenus were hospitalised, 
The DIG of Police, Intelligence, complained that 
the detenus lodged in Central Prisons of Hydera- 
bad, Warrangal, Rajahmundry and Visakhapatnam 
and District Jail at Secunderabad and Nellore 
were getting admitted to various hospitals on one 
pretext or the other and after being admitted to 
the hospital, were contacting their party workers. 

20.16 In the case of MIS A detenus, besides 
granting interviews with layers, interviews were also 
granted initially only to the members of the fami- 
lies of the detenus and that too in the event of 
serious illness of detenus. Subsequently, in the month 
of August 1975, this was relaxed and interviews 
were granted once a month to family members. 
Interviews were refused to 27 detenus for a period 
of six months, because of their alleged nexalite. 
activities. This was subsequently extended by ano- 
ther six months. The jail authorities also imposed 
punishment by way of stoppage of interviews on 
12 detenus for violation of prison discipline, 

20.17 No newspapers or periodicals were sup- 
plied, to the detenus at Government cost. However, 
detenus were allowed to purchase newspapers and 
periodicals as approved from time to time from 
their own resources. Facilities for recreation, and 
cultural activities were provided at Government 
cost. 



ASSAM 

20.18 In the absence of replies to the question- 
naire sent by the Commission, this note is based 
on the observations of the officers of the Com- 
mission, who had visited some of the jails irt 
Assam and had also collected certain statistics 
from the files of the State Government. 

. 20.19 As against authorised accommodation for 
4930 prisoners in the jails in Assam, the number 
of prisoners in that Stale as on June 25, 1975, was 
.7909. The number of persons detained /arrested 
during the Emergency was as under :— 



MISA .., 

DISIR 

COFEPOSA 



558 

1,933 

53 



To accommodate these additional inmates work- 
shops for vocational training in the jails had to be 
Converted as residential premises for the detenus. 
Besides barracks specifically meant for recreational 
and educational purposes also had to be closed 
for providing accommodation to detenus. Thus, the 
problem of overcrowding was aggravated by the 



influx of persons detained/arrested during the 
Emergency. The then Chief Secretary, Assam, had 
occasion to observe that overcrowding was the 
biggest problem faced by the jails and that there 
was no prospect of improvement in the situation 
because the disposal of cases of under-trial pri- 
soners, who constituted the bulk of the jail popula- 
tion, had shown no appreciable improvement. The 
jails most affected by this problem of overcrowd- 
ing were the district jails at Gauhati,. Dibrugarh, 
Dhubri and Goalpara, 

20.20 Regarding problems of water supply and 
sanitation, the IG (Prisons) has observed : 

"Besides the problem of overcrowding in 
the Jail, there was the problem of inade- 
quate water supply also. Due to the 
increased population in the ' jails, parti- 
cularly during the hot season, water had 
become rather scarce." 

In order to meet this problem, additional pumps 
had to be installed. Besides, water was procured 
with the help of the water tankers of the concerned 

Municipalities. 

20.21 Regarding sanitation and conservancy, 
the IG of Prisons has observed : 

"The problem of sanitation, particularly 
the latrines, were my constant headache. 
The latrines in the Jails of Assam as 
such were not adequate enough to cope 
up with the needs of such large number 
of prisoners. Due to the sudden influx of 
the detenus during the period* of emer-. 
gency, the existing latrines were founds 
to be highly inadequate. Naturally, the. 
hygiene and sanitary conditions in 
Jails deteriorated to some extent. 

20.22 The Inspector General by a special order 
prohibited the use of handcuffs on prisoners 
excepting those who were violent. Specialised medi- 
cal facilities were made available Dn the advice of 
doctors and many detenus were sent to Gauhati 
Medical College hospital. 292 persons detained 
under the emergency laws required special medical 
treatment or hospitalisation. It was made available 
to them. The expenditure on jail hospitals increa- 
sed from Rs. 4.55 lakhs in 1974-75 to Rs. 7.65 
lakhs in 1976-77. The IG. (Prisons) also authori- 
sed the Jail Superintendent's to purchase locally, 
medicines not available in Government Hospitals. 

20.23 Diet as prescribed in the Assam Deten- 
tion Order was given to .MISA detenus and* diet as 
prescribed in the Assam Jail Manual to COFE- 
POSA detenus and DISIR prisoners. All political 
prisoners were allowed to arrange and supervise 
their own cooking. According to the IG (Prisons) , 
no detenu died while in detention in any of the 
Jails of Assam. Two persons arrested under DISIR" 
died in custody during the period of the emergency. 
Administrative inquiry came to the conclusion that 
there was no foul play in the case of death of one 



^4°%^ %°? £** -However, the 

expired, but AS n o? w" Ce f ° r ? auhati JaiI h *d 
long time Th P r n ! ■ been rec °nstituted for a very 

his absence, the AJJC % ?L ? 0mi F & ? on ^> ™d m 
to the local jails The cL°- male frequent visits 
the iWco^ 

frequently listen +« +»,*. wiuuia visit the jail 

and try fo solve iefc nmhf^T of the ™ mat ^ 
of deaUl of Zother J^ Ien,S ,' Inquir 5' in res Pect 
death was duftot'tuSf oa n uL ak0 SWd tot his 

prisons * were^S *ff A d « e ™ «* MSIR 
under the orders o the local D^, "^' 6 ***"*■ 
in the presenre „f ¥„. if- "Wy Commiss oner 

•he IG SSjIa^S^t^f *, «r Ver ' 

provided with pSicafg ^L ^ !? 1 ' Dell;n ^ were 
Recreational Vdf "^ ^faehftiof % "ISR 
badminton, chess etr i».™ „i . V0 "eyball, 

sionahy, cinema shows S fhf pP™ 1 ^. Occa- 
mew of the . GoXimen, o a< " ly Deparl - 

s p p oStSi ns D paSrrthe^o' ™^^ ™ 

BIHAR 

naS-Snt^hfconlrnt^ 1 '"';!- 10 the <" K5t »»- 

on ,teXX: s aTSS.rf'a.^L" bascd 

•and the statistics collected^ ^rnS'flS 

var^'in Ifift WSaL\t 
maximum number of inmates tnth^T-? The 
ge dnrW the en^^foVo ?« 
,\?V-i. 5 " Becaus e of over-crowding in the inn, 

anUat ar and Um f ° US COmplaints "&£ » pS 
sanitary and conservancy condition* X „ ■ 

received from the prisoner. On October 4 197? 
political prisoners lodged in Hazari IWh t! ; i ?, J 

fled" by then? on November of^lfZ^ ' 

EST a f i n$t ? C iaiI ^ministration! two crim - 
nals arrested under the MISA jumped' into a ™ 
Political prisoners also joined other prisoners n 
shouting slogans against the authorities "n the 
resultant confusion an alarm was sounded and it 
* alleged that political prisoners were indiscrim 
nately beaten up by the jail staff and convict 0™" 
seers. One Shri Sayyid' Mohammad HabcebuUali 
aged about 80 years, sustained injuries Tm 



m 



the relations of the detenus in the Srfh^ 
manner. A prisoner, who want ed to teke 1 n eSmf 
nation, was not provided with the normal ?acnS" 

wftn'nS 6 tlmC P ° ]iticaI P^nershad been SdiS'-- 
with ordinary criminals Th* rv,™— :„ ■ iuu s eu 

brought to the notice of «,» <- CommISS >°ner also 
Phance with ^ fn^cl^S" Vukf^rj 

fo ff X6 I PnS T T. erS W3S bein « fe P' in ««l 
W^^U^d^^/^^,^' 

20.28 Relatives of Class A and Class "R nr t 

deputed by-Dfe/Wctt'SSSS*^, . 

Ha ^B^r,he U gepn S tv f °c r f""- "? h °" °* '» 
order tc .the el« ,S y Coi !; m,ss 'oner passed an 

ohfain °ancL ffrom h ,l S S r S P™»« ^o.ald 
*ou 8 h the Bihar Section! "'"or ef^T 
f.l tl e Stv 3 "^ 1 ' ™ " P res ™"in£"anctS 
Ma3s«to?o7gn t S , Sv1'e°vr 0r " ,e Dis,tict 



GUJARAT 

of t 29 S t a T t'e e w a af^l d a s » 'Ssl^l ^ 
the actual population on tha" day was' 3636 i 

msi^^p o n I A aI ct n ; - nt0 cus ^r^ 3 Mis T l 

oi^, ^u^iiFU^A, etc. is as given below :— 



1. MISA 



2. COFEPOSA 

3. PISIR 



1762 
(including 91 Pak Nationals) 

279 

2643 



however, were transferred to Raiasth^ , p ® u 

and Tamil MnHi, unl ■ ^ajastlian, Punjab 

XBmn Nadu jails m accordance with the 



■'•••^•wMHa&OTiHKEtta; 



139 



instructions received from the Central Government. 
The detaining authorities were authorised to classify 
the prisoners according to their discretion. How- 
ever, .in April- 1976- the Government issued certain 
guidelines treating Members of Parliament, Mem- 
bers of Legislative Assembly, Mayor, Deputy 
Mayor, Chairman of Committees of Corporations/ 
President and Vice-President/Chairman of Com- 
mittee of District and Taluka Panchayats being 
treated as Class 1 prisoners. As a result of the 
petition filed by some of the d'etenus, the Govern- 
ment gave an assurance to the High Court to 
examine the case of each detenu separately and 
further clarified on October 26, 1976 that engineers, 
doctors, lawyers and persons paying income-tax 
over a period of 10 years of not less than Rs. 5,000 
a year, who had' been detained for political activi- . 
ties and Presidents of the Municipalities, would 
be given Class 1 status. Businessmen paying income- 
tax of not less than Rs. 5,000 a year were also 
given Class I status. No person was put in solitary 
confinement. However, the accused persons in the 
Baroda Dynamite case were kept in separate cells 
under the orders of the court. The court later 
ordered that since they were under-trial prisoners, 
they would be kept along with other under- trial 
prisoners. However, the accused themselves reques- 
ted that they be kept in separate cells and this 
request was acceded to. All the prisoners were 
detained subsequently under the MISA and there- 
after they were shifted from separate cells and 
kept together in the barracks in the hospital yard. 
699 detenus received special medical treatment' 
" during their period of detention. Eight MISA 
detenus died either during the period of detention 
or within one month from the date of their release 
-on parole. Of these", three, died while in custody 
and magisterial inquiry was ordered in these cases. 
Two COFEPOSA detenus expired during the period' 
of detention. 3122 detenus were given 'special diet 
for reasons of health, etc. MISA detenus were 
supplied newspapers on the approved list and 
given facilities of recreation as per Gujarat Condi- 
tions, of Detention Order, 1971. Conditions of 'the 
prison barracks and sanitary block were not found 
to be satisfactory. Medical facilities available in 
most of "the Central Prisons like Ahmedabad, 
Baroda and Surat prisons are reported to be satis- 
factory. Those desirous of getting - Ayurvedic 
treatment, etc. were provided the requisite' facilities. 
None of the detenus was put in solitary confinement' 
or kept in fetters in the jail. However, , some 
Class II detenus were awarded solitary confinement 
as prescribed by the Manual for acts of misbeha- 
viour, etc. On April 20, 1976, there was an 
incident of assault on the jail staff by the MISA 
Class II detenus, who were not willing to be locked 
up during the night in jail. They demanded the 
same facilities as" Class I detenus who were not 
locked during the night. There was a scuffle 
between the jail staff and the detenus resulting, in 
a' mild lathi charge. Tn this incident five 
jail uuards and 14 detenus sustained minor 
injuries. The State Government has recently set 
up a Jail Reforms Committee under the Chairman- 
ship of Shri Babubhai Vasanwala, MLA. . 



HARYANA. 

20.30 Accommodation for 2794 prisoners was 
available in the Haryana jails on June' 25, 1975, 
whereas the jail population on that day was 3003. 
During the Emergency, the number of prisoners 
taken into custody an L d kept in different prisons 
from time to time was as under : — 



(1) MISA 


200 


(2) COFEPOSA 


2 


(3) DISIR 


1079 


(4) EC Act-cum-DISIR 


99 


(5) EC Act 


869 


(6) 151 Cr. PC 


592 



20.31 The chart beiow indicates the authorised 
accommodation in different jails of Haryana and 
the maximum number of detenus/prisoners lodged 
therein during ihe year 1975-76 : 



Name of the 
District 


Authorised 
Accommo- 
dation 


Maximum 
Date 


Strength 
Fig. 


Ambala 


986 


30-8-1976 


1098 


Hissar 


700 


28-8-1975 


870 


Rohtak 


350 


31-1-1976 


699 


Gurgaon 


119 


1841-1976 


294 


Karnal 


180 


7-8-1975 


456: 


Kaithal 


• ,. 24 . 


5-8-1975 


97 


Mohindergarh 


50 


19-8-1975 


50 



20.32 Several MISA detenus from Delhi were 
also sent to Haryana from time to time and lodged 
in different jails of the State. In. Hissar, Rohtak, 
Gurgaon, Karnal and Kaithal there was considerable 
overcrowding as would be evident from the figures. 
The MISA and COFEPOSA detenus were kept 
separately. Separate arrangements were made out- 
side the jail for Shri Morarji Desai and Shri Jaya- 
prakash Narayan. MISA and COFEPOSA detenus 
were treated as a separate class as mentioned in 
Haryana Detenus (Conditions of Detention) Order, 
1971 and Haryana Detenus, (Conditions as to Main- 1 
tenance, Discipline and Punishment for breach' of 
Discipline) Order, 1974. Shri Jyotirmoy Basu and 
Shri Raj Narain werei kept in, solidary confinement 
in District Jail, Hissar. A number of other persons 
including Shri K. R. Malkani, Shri Hari Ram, Shri 
Ram Lai were kept in solitary cells for; different 
periods. While two of the detenus were kept in 
solitary confinement for the purpose of interrogation, 
some others- were kept in such confinement for viola- 
tion of prison discipline. One Shri Parminder 
Kumar Bhardwaj, a suspected Naxalite, was also 
kept in solitary confinement for some time. 



20.33 350 persons were provided specialised me- 
dical treatment or hospitalization during the period 
of me Emergency, Three persons died while under 
detention. Shn Khem Paul, who was arrested in 
^hnf 0l P case and Yasectomised on November n 
1975, died on November 30, 1975—13 days after" 
the vasectomy operation, as a result of post-operative 
complications. In Haryana 55 persons were steri- 
lised during the period of their detention. It is seen 
from the report of the State Government that in a 

.number of cases where" Chief Medical Officer or 
the Jail Medical Officer had recommended spe- 
cialised treatment in hospital, such treatment was 

denied by the Administration on one ground or the 

trative ■ I " eSard ' the followin § cases are iI]us " 

(a) Shri Mani Ram Bagri was recommended 
transfer to Medical College Hospital, 
Rohtak on September 21, 1976 The 
District Magistrate, Ambala was asked on 
September 30, 1976 to keep a watch on 
the health of the detenu and to inform 
the Government as and when it caused 
concern. On the latest medical report 
dated October 20, 1976, the condition of 
the detenu was described as satisfactory 
and hence he was not transferred. 

(b) The Surgical Specialist, Civil Hospital 
Ambala, had advised that Shri Hiranand 
Arya be shifted to the Medical College 
Hospital, Rohtak, for consultation. On 
this the opmion of the then Superinten- 
dent, Medical College Hospital, Rohtak, 
was sought ; but it was not available till 
the release of the detenu on February 1. 
■I "77. 

^ I iU? e Case of Mr ' V ' P ' Saini > &c Medical 

dated May 14, 1976, advised the transfer 
of the detenu either to PGI, Chandigarh 
or to some hospital in Delhi for treatment 
Jhe matter rernained under correspon- 
dence with different authorities until the 
detenu was transferred to District Jail 
Kohtak, for treatment on January 13, 

ft) In the case of Shri Devi Lai, the Superin- 
tendent Sub-Jail, Mohindergarh through 
his wireless message dated November 9 

?« ^f£^U h ?£ e "? lssIon of G °vernmen 
S?? 8 ?? f. hn Devi Lal fro ^ Mohinder- 
garh to Medical College Hospital, Rohtak 
Hie proposal was turned down by the 
Chief Minister who suggested that a skin 
specialist should visit him. VZ L2S 
^'r? - T Pa ? ents conditi on deteriorated 
4R h™Z\ L * 1 r ?f orte i to hunger strike for 
48 hours from December 21, 1976 to nro- 

utrio 7SL C P ^ported on Decem- 
ber 29 1976 that Shri Devi Lai was 

and that there was no improvement in his 
condition. Even then the Chief Minister 



140 



ordered on January 4, 1977 that for the 
present he should remain in Mohindergarh. 

t -i^a 4 u SI l ri Kl L ' June i a > Superintendent, Central 
Jan, Ambala, was placed under suspension for re- 
commending that Shri Hardwari Lal should be sent 
for^ better treatment either to PGI Chandigarh or 
to Medical College, Rohtak. The State Government 
initiated departmental action against him on the 
ground that though facilities for consulting the 
specialist were available in civil hospital, Ambala; 
Shn Juneja gave an untrue report about the condi- 
tion of the detenu and he insisted on, his transfer 
trom district jail, Ambala. During inquiry by the 
Commission's officials, it was revealed that the Me- 

tw wf^T 11 ^, ! 11 Hos P itaI > Ambala, suggested 
that Hardwari Lal, who was suffering from Myocar- 
diac Infarction, should be shifted to PGI Chandi 
garh.or Medical College, Rohtak for constant medi- 
cal supervision. The Director of Health Services 
Haryana, however, opined that there was no such 
symptom of any coronary distress and Shri Hardwari 

AmW* t b i. safeJ y *«**! m the civil hospital at 
.Ambala. In this case, Shri S. K. Puri, the then IG— 
Prisons, at present Additional Inspector General of 
Prisons, Haryana, Chandigarh, has stated that "The 
case regarding treatment of Shri Hardwari Lal was 
discussed in the office of the Chief Secretary and 
Secretary for Jails when the Deputy Secretary was 
; a so present Shri R. C. Mehtani was sent o7 who 

£ f r ing f f C f hief Minister > informed The 
Chief Secretary that there was nothing serious with 
anri Hardwari Lal requiring immediate attention." 

m^ 35 ^ ,terVi T S - Were initialI y S™"^ once a 
month. This condmon was relaxed on July 8 1975 

l £S SdL wR °!f 1S T d t0 censor ^coming 
ann outgoing letters and collect information aboift 
he activities of the detenus, etc. On NovembefS 
S jhowever^ interviews were restricted to once 

re ec£d g bv W? re A Ues . ts for ***&* we?e 
Ktv 5 l 9 ?„ D , 1St u Ct Magistrate, Ambala, and 
XJwfX ge ? Umber 0± cases interviews were 
disallowed on various grounds. There were alS 
ions that sometimes the interviews were de aved~ 
ntentionally by the jail authorities and visitors had 
1 HPa** t , ver y'long lime. One Shri TekChaSd - 
ex-MLA, while confined in District Jail; Kanial n?ed 

■T? U l ^ Condit ions of Detention) Order 197^ 



141 



20.36 Newspapers arid periodicals were supplied 
as per the rules. However, detenus were denied 
access to certain books. Authorities of District Jail, 
Hissar seized some books belonging to Shri George 
Fernandes and these were returned to him only after 
his release. These included books like "The Bitter 
Harvest", "inflation and India's Economic Crisis", 
"Of Cabbages and Kings" and "For Reasons of 
State". 



20.37 There was a provision in the Haryana 
Dete'nus (Conditions of Detention) Order 1971 for 
grant of family maintenance- allowance ranging from 

*Rs. 50 to Rs. 100. It is seen from the records 

that 25 detenus submitted petitions for grant of 
family maintenance allowance, duly recommended 
by the District Magistrate. All these petitions were 
rejected by the State Government. 

20.38 A special feature of the jail administration 
during the period of the Emergency in Haryana was 
that on many important issues like arrival and 
transfer of detenus, interviews with the detenus, etc., 
the District Magistrate became the main channel of 
communication of the instructions of Government 
to the Superintendents of the Jails and the position 
and authority of the IG (Prisons) was whittled down. 
Shri S. K. Puri, the then IG (Prisons) has confirmed 
that in most of the cases he had no earlier intimation 
regarding the arrival of the detenus and that in clear 
violation of the established procedures and channels 
of communication, the District Magistrates were 

•issuing orders directly to the Jail Superintendents. 
Similarly, the decision to keep a particular individual 
at a particular place was taken at the level of the 
Government without consulting the IG (Prisons) . A 
Jarge number of detenus from other States were kept 
in Haryana without prior consultation with the IG 
(Prisons). 



HIMACHAL PRADESH 

....... 20.39 The authorised accommodation in all the 

jails together in the State was for 561 prisoners, 
whereas the jail population as on June 25, 1975, 
was 264. 

20:40 During the emergency, the number of 
persons arrested/detained is as under : — 

MISA ... 34 

DISIR ... 251 

Various economic offences . . . 403 

Total : ^688 

Persons arrested u/s 151 of 
the Cr. PC and other Preventive 
Laws ... 62 

20.41 However, some of the. persons arrested 
under- DISIR and other Laws were released on bail 
from time to time. 

S/25 HA/78— 19 



20.42 On the whole, the jails in Himachal Pra- 
desh were not overcrowded during the emergency. 

20.43 The persons arrested under different Laws 
and Rules relating to emergency were kept in 
separate wards. Some of the prisoners detained 
during emergency were sent outside the State. The 
MISA detenus were classified into the classes, viz., 
special class and ordinary class. Other prisoners, 
including DISIR prisoners, were classified into two 
classes, viz., 'B* Class and 'C Class. Member of 
Parliament, Members of Legislative Assemblies, . etc., 
were kept in special class and other detenus in 
ordinary class. 

20.44 The detenus were granted interviews as per 
conditions in the detention orders. Initially, they 
were liberal but under the 1 guidelines issued by the 
Government of India, certain restrictions were im- 
posed on interviews. Detenus and other prisoners 
were given basic facilities and special diet as appli- 
cable from time to time under the Rules. 



20.45 Requests for supply of newspapers 
recreational facilities were also granted. 



and 



20.46 Shri Vidya Sagar Joshi, a detenu, died due 
to heart attack on August 12, 1976. On a Magis- 
terial inquiry, it was found that the death was due 
to natural causes following a massive heart attack. 



KARNATAKA 

20.47 On the day the Emergency was declared the 
prison population in Karnataka jails was 5,217 as 
against authorised accommodation for 7,311. During 
the emergency the total number or persons .kept in 
jail following their arrest/detention is as under :— 



MTSA 




487 


COFEPOSA 




119 


DISIR 




4,015 


Cr. P. C. 




1,232 


Karnataka Police 


Act 


.. ...1,562 



20.48 This resulted in overcrowding in some of 
the jails. The- State Government, however, did not 
establish any place of detention outside normal 
prisons in spite of the 1 overcrowding. For instance, 
-m the Central Prison, Bangalore, as against the 

authorised accommodation for 750 the jail popula- 
tion was fluctuating between 1,000 and 1,600 during 
the emergency. MISA and COFEPOSA detenus 
were segregated while DISIR prisoners were kept 
with the undertrial prisoners. 

20.49 According to the Inspector General of 
Prisons, the sanitary conditions in all the jails were 
more or less satisfactory. 

20.50 Security prisoners under the MISA were 
broadly divided into two Classes — A'and B. COFE- 
POSA. detenus were treated as a separate class. \ 



DISIR undertrials and convicts were treated as ordi- 
nary prisoners. However, as .has been noted during 
the Commission's hearing of Snehalatha Reddy's 
case, the conditions for female prisoners were not 
quite satisfactory. No person was detained in soli- 
^ A c ° q ? lement - during. this' period, though one 
MISA detenu was kept separately for observation of 
his mental condition. 

2 ?'S . II S 35 been re Ported by (he State Govern- 
ment that adequate medical facilities were given to 
MISA detenus and {flat specialist medicaUlervices 
.were- also made available as and when needed. The 
State Government had issued instructions that in 
case the condition of any detenu deteriorated and 
the detenu was in urgent need of specialist medical 
treatment for any serious illness, he should be shifted 

r^n^T en o nt hos P ital 1 for the required specialist 
treatment. However, as has been noted in the case 
of Lawrence Fernandes, due either to indifference 
or to negligence, the required medical facilities like 

\n*S* r T Te i^ made avaiI *bIe to him in time 
m spite of the advice of the specialist. 

•wiSf \ ? ye 5 Al? ? uI SaJam - on& Qi the detenus, died 
during detention due to heart failure. A magisterial 
inqmry regarding his death has been ordered 

20.53 Smt. Snehalatha Reddy, a chronic natient 
of asthma, who was arrested on May 2 i 976 and 
detained under.the MISA on May 22, 1976, lZ W 
m ^Bangalore jail. I n the diary maintained g her 
she has not only mentioned about ill-treatment and 

but also about lack of proper medical care and atteh- 

heSeS Tne 3?"*? ^ ^ *° take ^^ 
t»T n ^ ad ^ ce of the raedicaI offi cer, Central 
Jail, Bangalore, that she be admitted to a hospital 
for investigation and treatment was ignored Her 
condition deteriorated during the period of her deten 

??7fi 3 & I a VfT d ? n parole on December 13, 
1976 and she died shortly thereafter, on January 20, 

rf Ji°'J 4 ? am *¥ * ai p arekh, a COFEPOSA detenu 
died during detention in the District Prison a" 
Bangalore. He had symptoms of hysteria hvoer 
tension etc. He was shifted to the D$^H$3to{ 

pital at the same place, where he 1 died. 

20.55 Newspapers, magazines, periodicals etc 
were supplied to the MISA detenus as per flw'exto' 
mg scale. Recreational facilities were afso provfded 
at Government cost. It is reported that there was 
no instance of handcuffing of or putting of S- 

££? £ r ^^ P° Weve? > * the case If 
pSSX. *? Gumdev who came from Uttar 
Pradesh, he was received in fetters from Utor 

The sTal' 5 ^ thC ° rderS ° f the Govermnent or 

20.56 Interviews were granted as per rules' and 

SL n toS£"**Sf Bd by ?? v ™™*<* S from 
r5L%,^ Sto PP a £* of interviews had also been 
resorted to as a measure of prison disciplSe The 
Superintendents were empowered to grant ffterviews 
on the bas ls of eligibility. It is seen tha? a Tar^ 



142 



number of prisoners was transferred from one jail 
to another and according to the Inspector General 
of Prisons this was not done as a punitive measure. 

_ 20.57 There was a serious case of rioting in 
Central Jail, Bellary on January 29, 1976. which 
started with an exchange of words between DIR 
prisoners and a canteen clerk. Thereafter there was 
a scuffle between DIR prisoners and the jail staff' 
inis escalated into a serious confrontation between 
toe jail staff and the prisoners. Three detenus, one 
superintendent, and three Assistant Superintendents 
were injured. The State Government got the matter 
enquired into by the Inspector General of Prisons 
and punishments were inflicted on the Superinten- 
Ward ^ stant SuP^tendent and the Head 

KERALA 

w 2 ?"??o As - against . the auth orised accommodation 
for 5,213 prisoners in the jails in Kerala, the actual 

^sTclared 11 ™ ^ °* ^ ^ ^ «*"&*<* 

cn 20 'E - U ?/ ng the emergency, the number of per- 
sons detained/arrested was as under : 

MISA 790 

»ISIR J 6g94 

COFEPOSA ... 96 

*i!?'?? ¥ J ?^ detenus were accommodated in the 
fc n % JJ* i*d COFEPOSA detenus were - 
kept in the Central Jail at Trivandrum. They were 
however, segregated from convicts and undertrial 
prisoners 16 juveniles charged with offender 
the DISIR were' detained in the Borstal School at 
Cannanore under Kerala Borstal School Act There 
was overcrowding in Trivandrum and Trichur Cent- 

jal It wasTen taXr?^^ °* *™ 

a and B was 72 and 36 respectively, whereas the 

thc T ^£ir PUm ° n in CaCh ° f ^eseVks during 
houR he °i? mi ^ nc y "™ 81- during the lock-up 
hours the detenus were required to use urinals at- 
tached to the cells. Trichur Central Jail has m 
depend on the Panchayat for supp y o fwate for 
purposes of cooking, drinking and wash L Water 
supply is very inadequate between January and June 
fn Z Y % T - San i ta ^ facilities are also ^equate 
In the absence of septic tanks in several blocks the 
practice of manual removal of nightsoil has no! vet 
been discontinued in this jail. , ye 

20.61 MISA detenus had been kept in one cla« 
without any distinction. Some of tW Wver 

££ SST1S ?? additi ° nal facili ^ in coTpt 
ance with the' Government orders. COFEPOSA 
detenus were kept as ordinary prisoners and I the 
DISIR undertnals were provided with facilities ad 
missible to undertrial prisoners. ldW "nes ad- 

™3' 6 l Faciiities for specialised treatment or hos- 
pitalisation were extended to 231 persons taken iSL 
custody under the emergency liwT O^l MISA 
detenu and one COFEPOSA detenu died durinTthl 
per.od of detention while undergoing fJZ lit in 






143 



hospitals outside the jail. ' The magisterial enquiry 
held in regard to the death of the MISA detenu gave 
the finding that the death was due to natural causes. 

,20.63 Apart from, providing newspapers to the 
detenus, they were permitted to get such newspapers, 
periodicals an'd books from outside as were not 
considered objectionable. The detenus were also 
provided with facilities for sports and recreation and 
grants under this head had been suitably increased. 

20.64 .Superintendents of Jails were empowered 
to allow : relatives or counsel to have interviews with 
the' detenus. While the family members could inter- 
view the detenu for 15 minutes, the Advocates were 
allowed to be with the detenus for 30 minutes. 

MADHYA PRADESH 

" 20.65 As against the authorised accommodation 
for 12,388 prisoners in the jails in Madhya Pradesh, 
the jail population was 16,166 on June 25, 1975. 
The number of persons detained/taken into custody 
under different laws during the emergency was as 
under : 



5,620 (exlcluding 74 
absconders) 

11 

2,521 

26,904 



MISA 

COFEPOSA . 

DISIR . , 

Preventive Laws (151 Cr. P.C.) 

20.66 To accommodate this extraordinary influx 
of prisoners, some of the barracks earmarked for 
female and juvenile prisoners were converted into 
regular prison wards. The jails at Begum Ganj and 
Narsingarh were kept exclusively earmarked for the 
MISA detenus and a temporary jail was also set up 
atPachmari. 

20.67 Persons detained or arrested under emer- 
gency laws were kept in the same jails where under- 
trial prisoners and convicts had beefi, lodged, but 
they were accommodated in separate wards. In 
some of the jails it was found that lunatics were 
locked up in female wards along with ordinary pri- 
soners. 

20.68 The Inspector General of Prisons' has stated 
as follows : 

"Almost every jail was over-populated. . So 
the work sheds, prayer hall and other 
available accommodation in the jails, were 
vacated to create accommodation for 
MISA detenus. Ordinary prisoners were 
shifted to segregated barracks where too 
much overcrowding occurred. As a result, 
the jail factories were wholly or. partially 
closed. The sanitation requirements were 
. also not adequate as the overcrowding 
occurred : to the ■ exfient of -50 per cent " to 

- . 100 per cent or even more in some of the 1 

; jails.* 

20.69 MISA deten,us were' categorised as Class I 
and Class II prisoners and tlfiose arrested under other 
laws; as Special and X)rdinarf Class prisoners. Under 
the instructions of the State ^Government, the District 
Magistrate , categorised Members of Parliament, 
Members of Legislative Assembly arid other impor- 



tant political leaders as Class I prisoners. The other 
detenus were treated as Class II prisoners. COFE- 
POSA detenus were treated as ordinary prisoners. 
A large number of MISA detenus filed petitions in 
the High Courts for writs against their categorisa- 
tion as Class II prisoners as they resented the extra 
facilities made available to the detenus of the higher 
class. 

20.70 The punishment of solitary confinement 
was awarded to 87 detenus for breach of discipline 
etc. 732 detenus were hospitalised during the period 
of their detention. Specialists used to be sent to the 
jail to attend to the patients. The detenus were also 
sent outside the State for specialised medical treat- 
ment. 

20.71 13 persons died either during the period 
of their detention, or within one month following 
their release. In 9 of these cases, magisterial inquiry 
was held and no negligence was found in 8 of them. 
In the 9th case, i.e. the case of Shri Hashmat Warsi, 
further inquiry is in progress. '■■'■■; 

20.72 24 MISA detenus were kept in fetters for 
a specified period on grounds of indiscipline, rioting 
etc. During a visit to Dewas jail, officers of the 
Commission found that all ordinary prisoners . were 
kept in fetters on the ground that the Dewas Jail 
was an insecure jail. RiotS; involving MISA detenus 
and other prisoners occurred at the following jails 
during the emergency :— 



Bhopal 
Rewa . 
Chindwara 
Raipur 
Dhar . 



November 27, 1975 
September 18, 1975 
July 21, 1975 
January 1,1976 
March 19, 1976 



Enquiries relating to the incidents of rioting in 
Raipur, Rewa and Dhar jails have been conducted 
by the State authorities. Inquiries into other inci- 
dents are in progress. 

20.73 District Magistrates were empowered to 
allow any five members of the family of the. detenu 
to have an interview with him once a fortnight. 
Permission was also given to lawyers for consulta- 
tion with the detenus. In the case of COFEPOSA 
detenus, however, interviews were granted once a 
month. 86 MISA detenus were denied the facility 
of interview for specified periods as a measure of 
punishment for breach of jail discipline. 

MAHARASHTRA 

20.74 As against an authorised accommodation 
for 14,801. prisoners in Maharashtra Jails, the jail 
population on June 25, 1 975 stood at 1 9,786. During 
the emergency the number of persons detained/ 
arrested under the various emergency laws was as 
unde^ ;-_ 



MISA 

COFEPOSA 

PISIR 



5,473 

490 

9,799 



20.75 39 additional barracks were constructed in 
the various prisons in the State on a priority basis 
to cope with this problem of overcrowding^ The 



144 



new prison, at Kalyan became 1 operational from 
March 1976 providing accommodation for another 
500 prisoners. The following figures relating to 
some of the jails indicate the extent of the problem 
of overcrowding : — 



SI. Name of Prison 
No. 



1. Yervada Central Prison 

2. Nasik Road Central Prison 

3. Nagpur Central Prison 

4. Bombay Central Prison 

5. Thana Central Prison 



Autho- Maxi- 

rised mum 

Accommo- Occu- 

dation pancy 

2,179 4,157 

2,540 3,862 

1,300 2,818 

1,074 . 2,122 
789 1,707 



MISA detenus were segregated from convicts and 
undertrials. Detenus were broadly categorised into 
Class I and Class II on the basis of the state of 
health, education, and mode of living. Generally 
political detenus' were given Class I status. COFE- 
POSA detenus were categorised as Class II detenus. 
Persons prosecuted under the DISIR or other laws 
were treated as ordinary un,dertrial prisoners while 
under trial and also after conviction. 

20,76 No one was subjected to solitary confine- 
ment. 2,625 persons arrested or detained during the 
emergency required specialised medical treatment 
out of whom 1,404 had to be hospitalised during the 
period of their detention or trial. 11 MISA detenus 
died while under treatment in hospitals. Two of 
the MISA detenus died while on parole and 4 died 
within one month of their release from detention. 
Magisterial inquiries were ordered in all the 1 1 cases. 
No negligence on, the part of jail or hospital authori- 
ties was found in the enquiries conducted into ten 
of these cases. No inquiries were held regarding 
cases of death while on parole. Two persons 
detained under the COFEPOSA died in prison while 
under detention. No magisterial inquiry was 
ordered into these cases, 

20.77 Interviews were granted in accordance with 
Condition No. 14 of the Maintenance' of Internal 
Sacunty (Maharashtra Conditions of Detention) 
Order, 1971. Initially, the number of interviews 
was limited to one per fortnight in the case of 
Class I prisoners and one per month in the case of 
Class II prisoners, excluding special interviews for 
legal advisers or election agents. The' orders in this 
regard were subject to changes from time to lime 
In certain cases, interviews were denied as a mea- 
sure of punishment. COFEPOSA detenus were 
permitted interviews with their relatives only once 
a monj. Subsequently, as a result of the judgment 
of the High Court (Criminal Application 20/1975) 
COFEPOSA detenus were permitted interviews once 
a week with their famijy members, relatives, friends 
and counsel. Separate: diet was arranged for MISA 
and COFEPOSA deterius. Special diet was also 
provided to the detenus on the recommendation of 
the doctor. 



20.78 Because of overcrowding, sanitation had 
been adversely affected in most of the jails. In the 
Nagpur Central Prison, water supply was very 
inadequate. 

20.79 Although no incidents of riots were reported 
in any of the_ prisons, -there -was" a" scuffle between 
two groups of MISA detenus in Visapur District 
Prison on December 10, 1976. The jail staff which 
went to control the situation sustained some injuries. 
89 detenus also sustained minor injuries during the 
scuffle. In Thana District Prison, token hunger 
strike was ^resorted to six times by certain prisoners 
to press their demand that they be shifted to jails 
near their homes. 

20.80 No Class I detenu was handcuffed or put 
in fetters. Nor were their barracks locked during 
the night. Permissible facilities like use of their 
own radios, provision for indoor and outdoor games, 
use of fans and cots were allowed. Detenus were also 
provided with hot water for their bath. Detenus 
were provided with newspapers at Government cost 
and were also allowed to buy such newspapers, 
periodicals, etc., which were on the approved list. 

MANIPUR 

20.81 As against the , authorised accommodation 
for 350 persons in the Manipur Central Jail, 
Imphal, there were 318 prisoners in that jail on 
June 25, 1975. During the emergency, the total 
number of prisoners arrested in -Manipur. under 
the MISA, COFEPOSA and DISIR was as 
follows : 



MISA 
DISIR 
COFEPOSA 



143 

228. 

13 



20.82 Some of the persons who were detained 
under the emergency laws and rules were kept along 
with, other prisoners in the same wards although they 
were given better facilities. The Central Jail was 
established in the year 1912. Though an old building 
it is well maintained. The jail had only a part-time 
Superintendent. Presence of a large number of non- 
criminal lunatics— roughly 20 per cent— poses a seri- 
ous problem to the jail administration. As there 
is no separate mental hospital in tta State these 
lunatics are kept in the Central Jail. Persons arres- 
ted under the MISA, were classified into three 
classes viz. 'A' and 'B' and «C\ COFEPOSA detenus 
XK?a ■ ? as ordma ry class prisoners. A number of 
MISA detenus had to represent and fight long 
battles to get their classification changed. The Dis- 
trict Magistrate had the .authority not to acew 
the classification made by the magistrate In the 
case of eight workers of the Bharatiya Jan Saneh 
it was noticed that the District Magistrate did not 
implement the classification made by the magistrate 
with the result that the detenus were not given 'A' 
class treatment. 

20.83 14 MISA, DISIR prisoners were given 
medical aid as indoor patients in the .fan" Hospital 
and two were sent for specialised treatment. No 
detenu died during the period of his detention or 
shortly thereafter;- 



145 



20. 84 Interviews were granted to legal advisers 
and family members as and when needed. Detenus 
desirous of appearing at an examination were 
allowed to take the examination inside the jail cam- 
pus, instead of being released on parole. Newspapers 
and other periodicals were supplied to the detenus. 
They were also provided with recreational facilities. 
In the ManipJur Central Jail, a large number of 
under-trial prisoners were kept in the open or in 
the workshops in view of the sudden influx of 
prisoners during the emergency. 

MEGHALAYA 

, 20.85 As against authorised accommodation for 
335 prisoners (.Shillong Jaii 230 and Tura Jail 105) 
there were 521 persons in custody on June 25, 
1975. 

20.86 During the emergency the number of 
persons 1 taken into custody under MISA, 
COFEPOSA and DISIR was as under ; — 



MISA 


... 39 


(including one arrest 
J madein Bihar but 
detained here) . 


COFEPOSA 


... 6 




DISIR 


... 20 





20.87 The MISA and COFEPOSA detenus were 
kept separate from convicts and undertrials. Keeping 
in view the overcrowding in the jails, the Government 
acquired a house in the Cleve Colony in Shillong 
and shifted thereto 37 non-criminal lunatics from the 
Shillong jail On March 19, 1976. Similarly, 24 
juvenile delinquents were shifted from Shillong to 
Sohiong on April 6, 1976. Following release of 
Naga political prisoners on May 8, 1976 from 
Special Jail Mewlai, the detenus were shifted there 
on May 11, 1976. 

20.88 Supply of water to Shillong jail was found 
to be very inadequate. 

20.89 In the absence of sufficient space in the 
Shillong jail, there was difficulty in providing • re- 
creational facilities to detenus. However, periodicals 
and magazines were supplied as per the provisions 
In the Detention Order. Under the provisions of 
Meghalaya Detention Order, the MISA and the 
COFEPOSA detenus were generally classified into 
two categories : Class I arid Class II. Persons re- 
quiring specialised medical treatment were' provided 
with the same. From the records it is seen that jail 
visitors .complained of inadequacy of medicines 
which was largely due to the facet that the Purchase 
Board of the Department had not met for more 
than a year and the doctor was not permitted to 
purchase medicines for a sum exceeding Rs. 50 per 
annum. The Board of Visitors which visited Shillong 
jail on May 25, 1977 i.e. two months after the 
lifting of the emergency had observed : 

" The acute shortage of medicines coupled 

with the over-crowded conditions in the 
jail have had a disastrous effect upon the 
health and may even threaten the lives of 
the inmates." 

20.9.0 Normally interviews as per the provisions 
of the rules were granted. It is noticed that all 



such persons who were not classified by the detaining 
authorities in the detention order were admitted as 
Class II detenus. Even Shri M. N. Majaw, a sitting 
MLA who was detained on September 18, 1975, 
was admitted as a Class II prisoner, Plis classifica- 
tion was changed to Class I on September 19, 1975 
on the basis of a representation sent by him from 
the jail. S/Shri Ram Naresh Pandey, Shekhar 
Ranjan Das, Raj Kumar Bhattacharjee, Brij Raj 
Mishra, Kumud Bandhu Bhattacharjee, Janardan 
Tiwari and Acharya Adi Shivanand Avdhoot, who 
had been detained in the first week of July 1975, 
sent a petition on July 17, 1975 requesting for higher 
class. The matter was examined and orders classi- 
fying these detenus as Class I prisoners were issued 
on August 6, 1975. Shri Ratan Kumar Palit detained 
on August 22, 1975, sent a petition on September 27, 
1975 challenging his classification as Class II 
prisoner and requesting for higher class. He was a 
lecturer and was detained on account of his alleged 
RSS affiliations. DIG Special Branch was requested 
on November 13, 1975 to send his views on the peti- 
tion. The DIG wrote on December 13, 1975 that 
the representation of the individual was correct. 
However, the Home Department did not agree and 
Shri Palit continued to remain a Class II prisoner 
until July 1, 1976 when his case was re-examined 
and he was granted higher class. He remained a 
Class II prisoner for over ten months despite the 
fact that his claim for his -elevation to the higher 
class appeared justified as is evident from the 
noting on the file. Another detenu named Lila Ram 
who was detained on March 31, 1976 got his 
classification changed from Class II to Class I on 
June 25, 1976 after representing to the authorities. 

NAGALAND 

; -20.91 As against the available, accommodation for 
700 prisoners, 450 prisoners were kept in the 
Nagaland jails on June 25, 1975. Entry of 92 MISA 
detenus and 4 DISIR prisoners therefore did not 
pose any problem for the jail administration. These 
prisoners were provided separate accommodation 
and given classification as per Detention rules. How- 
ever; a number of persons detained under the 
emergency laws were shifted outside Nagaland. The ■ 
Inspector' General of\ Police, .Nagaland has stated 
that the MISA detenus, were transferred outside 
Nagaland in view of the fact that facilities to be 
provided to MISA detenus were not available in 
the Nagaland jails. Some of the detenus, on the 
other hand, were transferred outside in the interest 
of security of the State. In the course of investiga- 
tion by the Commission's investigating officers, it 
was found that Shri Rushulo, an ex-Minister, wa*s 
handcuffed on November 3, 1976 while being taken 
from District Jail, Kohima to Central Jail', Dimapur. 

20.92 Adequate medical facilities were available 
in different jails. 

20.93 Interviews were granted in accordance with 
the existing order. 

20.94 The Home Secretary, Nagaland has report- 
ed that apart from the Central Jail at Dimapur and 3 
District jails, there were no proper jail buildings in 



146 



the sub-divisions. Some of the administrative build- 
ings : ha4 been converted into jail buildings and this 
might have caused iiicorivenience to the detenus 
initially, -'** 

20.95 No person died while under detention or 
within one-month from the date of their release on 
parole or otherwise. 

20.96 Facilities for newspapers and periodicals 
were given and recreational facilities were also 
provided to the detenus U 

ORJSSA 

.20- 97 , A s against authorised accommodation for 
6668 pnsoners the population in the various jails 
of Orissa stood at 10222 on June 25, 1975- The 
number of persons detained/arrested during the 
period of the emergency was as under :~~~ 



MISA 


: — 


408 


COFEPOSA 


. 


3 


DISIR 


- — 


762 



Thus there was considerable overcrowding in the 
jails of Orissa during the emergency. 

20.98 The detenus under the MISA and the 
COFEPOSA were categorised as higher class 
pnsoners. No separate arrangement was made for 
lodging the detenus. Some of them were accommo- 
dated in the Central Jail at Cuttack and the Circle 
Jail at Berhampur, where separate wards were avail- 
able for accommodating higher class prisoners In 
other jails where facilities were not available for 
lodging higher class prisoners, steps were taken to 
provide the necessary amenities to these detenus. 

20.99 Even though the detenus were kept in 
those very jails where ordinary prisoners had been 
confined, generally they were segregated from ordi- 

S^t^ 501 ^ 15 * The P eTSOn ^ arrested under the 
JJIMR were treated as Ordinary prisoners and provi- 
ded with facilities in accordance with the classifica- 
tion made by the courts concerned. 

20.100 Under Clause 2 of the Orissa Security 
Prisoners (Conditions of Detention) Order, 1971, 
persons detained under the MISA were categorised 
as class 'S' prisoners and they were entitled to 
receive the same treatment as was admissible to 
prisoners m Class One. They were provided with 
clothing, bedding, furniture and other facilities 
admissible to prisoners in Class One. They were 
allowed to smoke inside the jail. Complaints 
about the inferior quality of food served to 
the ■ detenus and inadequate clothing and 
oeddmg provided to them, were made by ihe 
detenus from time to time. These complaints were 
referred to the Inspector General of Prisons for 
necessary action. The facilities admissible to the 
MISA i detenus were extended to the COFEPOSA 
detenus^ ~ '" 

20. 10* 15 detenus were given solitary confinement 
as a measure of punishment for violating jail rules. 



20.102 105 persons arrested under emergency 
laws were provided with specialised medical treat- 
ment. Out of them 52 were hospitalised in hospitals 
outside the jail for treatment as indoor patients. 
Longer periods , of hospitalisation were allowed in 
cases where the patients were suffering from serious 
illness. In 91 cases diet different from that normally 
admissible to Division One prisoners was provided 
at Government cost on the advice of the doctor. 
Although medicines were provided at Government 
cost, spectacles and cervical collars prescribed by 
doctors were not provided as they were not admissi- 
ble under the Orissa Security Prisoners (Conditions 
of Detention) 'Order, 1971 and the Jail Manual. 

20.103 Persons admitted to medical college 
hospitals for treatment as indoor patients were given 
special diet for which an additional cost of Rs. 3 
per day was allowed. 

20.104 No one detained or arrested under emer- 
gency laws died during the period of his incarcera- 
tion or within one month after his release. 

20.105 Interviews with detenus were allowed as 
per provisions contained in Orissa Security of 
Prisoners (Conditions of Detention) Order, 1971 
and the instructions issued by the Government of 
India from time to time; Initially friends and mem-: 
bers of their family were not granted interviews. The 
counsel of the detenu, however, was permitted to 
have an interview with him in the presence of offi-~ 
rials detailed for this purpose. Subsequently the rules 
were relaxed and members of the family were 
allowed to have an interview with the detenu subject 
to certain restrictions. 

20.106 On April 12, 1976, the jail staff resorted 
to lathi charge to control a situation allegedly involv- 
ing clash between two groups ofjletenus. As; re- 
ported by the State Government, 17 detenus and 
10 members of the jail staff sustained injuries as a 
result of this incident. Following this incident the 
Government suspended the facility regarding the 
grant of interview with the detenus in Sambalpur 
Jail "as a precautionary measure". In Koraput jail 
it wafe alleged that the prisoners were physically 
assaulted and subjected to lathi charge on May 4 
1976. The Inspector General of Prisons, who con- 
ducted the inquiry held that during a test alarm 
parade held in Koraput jail at 11.00 a.m. on 
May 4, 1976, five prisoners did not obey the 
instructions and refused to get into the respective 
wards. They were over-powered by the warders, 
taken to the respective wards and locked up As 
per report submitted by the Inspector General of 
Prisons, no lathi or baton was used and none of 
the prisoners sustained any injury; Of the five 
prisoners involved in the incident, two Were under- 
trial prisoners and three were convicts. 

20.107 In 33 cases permission" for interview was 
refused as a measure of pimishment. In a few cases 
where permission had been granted for interviews '' 
they could not be held reportedly because the 
officer who was required to remain present during 
the interview did not turn up. ■■ 






147 



20.108 Prisoners were permitted to receive food 
from outside. Newspapers were provided to Division 
One and Division Two prisoners. Detenus and 
prisoners in higher division were permitted to use 
the jail library. t Detenus under the MISA were per- 
mitted to receive censored books and periodicals 
and newspapers from friends and relatives. Facilities 
for indoor games were also provided. In some of 
the jails, facilities for outdoor games existed. As 
intimated by the Government, no detente was per- 
mitted t6 use his own radio while .under detention. 
All the district jails except one had been provided 
with radio sets and radio programmes used to be 
broadcast through the loudspeakers fixed at 
convenient points inside the jails. 

20.109 An officer of the Commission had visited 
certain jails in the State and found that the sanitary 
conditions of the jails were generally unsatisfactory. 
The latrines and the bathing platform were lacking 
in privacy. 

PUNJAB 

20.110 As against the authorised accommodation 
for 6746 prisoners there were 7312 prisoners in the 
jails in Punjab as on June 25, 1975. 

20.111 During the emergency, the number of 
persons detained/arrested under different laws was 
as under : 



MISA .... 


440 


COFEPOSA . . . 


73 


DISIR ...■■.■'. . . . . 


2423 


TJ/Ss 107/15 1-Cr PC ;;"'.- " ■ . 


378* 


Economic Offences (U/Ss 7 of the 




EC Act and 1 14 of the DIR) 


714 


U/S 188 IPC. . ... 


596 


Others . . ■ . 


25 



20.112 The persons arrested or detained in con- 
nection with the emergency were accommodated in 
the same prisons where ordinary convicts or under- 
trials had been kept. However, they were kept in 
separate wards and barracks as also in tents. Barring 
those who had been awarded 'B' Class by the 
Courts, all other prisoners tender the DISIR were 
given ordinary class in Amritsar Jail. Barring 
Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative 
Assembly: who were classified as special class dete- 
nus, all others were treated as ordinary class dete- 
nus in the Patiala Jail.. The sanitary conditions in- 
cluding the sewage system were found to be in a 
very good order in the Amritsar Central Jail. In 
Patiala Jail, on the other hand, the condition was 
different and 25 extra latrines were got constructed 
for the use of MISA and COFEPOSA detenus. 
Four persons were confined to cell as a measure 
of punishment for violating jail rules. 

20.113 500 prisoners were referred to medical 
specialists from Amritsar Central Jail. An additional 
post of Pharmacist was attached to the Jail hospital 
in Patiala Jail but none was posted till the lifting 
of the emergency. There was no shortage of funds 



for purchase of medicines and other items. Ayurvedic 
treatment was given to Shri Balbir Singh. Two 
persons arrested under Section 151 died in the 
Central Jail, Amritsar; they are — 

(i) Kater Singh son of Veer Singh, 
(ii) Prem Singh son of Phool Singh. 

While the circumstances leading to the death of the 
former are still under inquiry, the enquiry in respect 
of the latter hate been completed and the Sub-Divi- 
sional Magistrate has held that had the patient been 
taken to a T.B. clinic, his life could perhaps have 
been saved. The doctor has also been held 
responsible for not giving him special attention. 

20.114 Interviews were granted as per rules and 
the guidelines issued by the Government of India 
from time to time. Interviews with detenus were 
denied in five cases as a measure of punishment. 

20.115 Periodicals and newspapers on approved 
list were supplied to the detenus who were also 
allowed to obtain on payment newspapers and 
periodicals included in the supplementary list. 

RAJASTHAN 

20.116 As a'gainst authorised accommodation for 
7515 prisoners in the various jails in Rajasthan, the 
.jail population stood at 6158 on the eve of the 
proclamation of the emergency. The number of 
persons detained/arrested during the emergency is 
as under : 



MISA 

COFEPOSA 

DISIR 

Section 
151 Cr PC 



952 

23 

1360 

2600 



In order to accommodate important political 
prisoners, the Government of Rajasthan made use' 
of three bungalows in Jaipur and one in Alwar. In 
some of the jails where MISA detenus were kept, 
care was taken to ensure that these detenus were seg- 
regated from ordinary criminals. At some places, 
however, this distinction could not be maintained for 
want of adequate space in the jails. Most of the 
persons detained under the MISA were categorised 
as *B' Class detenus and those detained under the 
COFEPOSA as 'C Class detenus. In 8 cases MISA 
detenus were kept in solitary confinement as a 
measure of punishment for violating prison 
discipline. 

20.117 206 detenus, were hospitalised, out of 
whom 178 received specialised medical treatment. 
No prisoner died in the jail during the emergency. 
Two persons, one of whom was suffering from 
cancer and the other from T.B. died shortly after 
their release. MISA detenus were categorised as 
Class I, Class II and Class III prisoners. In 
accordance with the provision in the Rajasthan 



148 



(Condition & Detention) Order, 1971, Class I 
prisoners were granted interviews once in two 
months and Class II prisoners once in three months 
Subsequently, following an amendment of this 
Order on August 4, 1975, interviews were granted 
once a month. On December 18, 1975 this Rule 
was further relaxed and the District Magistrates 
were empowered to grant interview to Class I 

fortrrTn "^ * **** ^ QaSS H detenus once a 

20.118 Special' diet was given to the MIS A 
detenus In one case the detenu was allowed to 
obtain rood from his house regularly. 

20.119 Newspapers and periodicals on the 
approved list were made available to the political 
prisoners and wherever possible recreational facili- 
S?*T e P r( ^ded Although the Government of 
Sric? n ? ad forbldden u se of handcuffs in respect 
of MISA detenus, there were complaints of "hand- 
cuffing at the tune of their initial arrest or in the 

STrt^feT? S^^ fr ° m ° ne J' ail to mother or 
trom the jail to the court. 

20.120 MTS A detenus were provided with 
^Ttn n L al %°n^ V&n an a ««^nce varying from 
S^tSef- 3 ° *" m ° mh f ° r the P urchase of 

20.121 Besides sanctioning family maintenance 

teTTZA*?™™' Government o7 RajSan 
had permitted student detenus to appear at exam" 
nations whde under detention. Some of the student 
were provided text books purchased from the 
market and instructions had been issued for reTaYmo- 
conditions regarding their attendance in thf 
educational institutions. 



STKKIM 

iZTs,^ UndertrM P ™° ne " SfthW on 

eml'LlZl F °^ pe t son . s were detained d'urine the 
■SS -ES^ .*?ISA. Thejr had beeA p? 

Sf&SlS! of "^ -coJolCt 

w^"i 24 T ? e four detenu s, who were transferred to 
West Bengal, were initially released on namWnS 
subsequently the parole orSer was withdr^wT None 
outsit. *** ^ ^°« for ™tenSSS wJrb 

TAMIL NADU 
J0.125 An EnqWry Commission has alreadv 

Sor^Com^^-^ iaUs iD W*5£ 
i,T. ™2S-- S^^^won is not recording a note nn 
the conditions in jails in Tamil Nadu. 



TRIPURA 

20.126 As against authorised accommodation tor 
519 prisoners, there were 730 prisoners in the jails 
in Tnpura on June 25, 1975. The total number of 
persons arrested/detained under different emergency 
laws during the emergency was as follows : — 



MISA 


.77 ' 


CFE & PS Act. . 


. 25 


DisrR 


. 99— (8 of them 
were subsequently 
detained under the 
MISA) 



20.127 In view of .the inadequacy of accommo- 
dation, some of the detenus were transferred to jails 
outside the State. Barring, higher class detenus who 
were kept in separate wards, the other detenus were 
kept along with ordinary prisoners. The prisoners 
were classified into category A, B and C, depending 
upon their status etc., as applicable under the rules? 

_ 20.128 Tripura Jail has one post each of a Dis- 
cipline Officer and a Welfare Officer. Besides this 
jail has one Medical Officer, one Compounder and 
a Clinical Psychiatrist, since the jail has a «ood 
number of non-criminal lunatics. The Central" Jail 
did not have electric fans earlier, but these have been 
provided recently. A special feature in this jail is 
the deputation of an officer from the Education De- 
partment to help^the inmates prosecute their studies 
Only members of the registered political parties were 
given the highest class i.e. Class C while others were 
given Class B or A. Some of the detenus had to 
appeal to the High Court for their re-classification. 

20.129 Student detenus were allowed to take their 
examination in the jail itself and for this necessary 
facilities were provided. ^ 

20.130 No 

confinement, 



individual was kept in solitary 



« 20 ' 13 *U t is s ? en from the re P ! y of the State Gov- 

wTT* ?? qUUe a ? Umbcr rf&tays and inmSL 

GP S >\ S P^ mIlSed medical treatme "t in the 

in rtJfcfF? 1 " £° ° ne diqd durin « his detention" 
* i atI ^ ™&m a month after his release on 
parole or otherwise. 

in ■ A«i'l 2 Int .™ Yi ™ was granted as per rules. Only 
medtal^'dr 6 " "" **"* and that t0 ° on 

t n 2 £ A P< S P ecia j v die t was given on medical grounds 
to. 57 detenus. One detenu was allowed to let food 
from outside on religious grounds. S d 

20.134 Requests for supply of newsm™*™ **a 
journals were generally acceded to and Seat \oml 
facilities were also provided. lecreaiional 

20 135 On the whole due to transfer of a'fero 
number of prisoners from Tripura, the probim of 
accommodation could be solved to some extent V 



vmffitmmmmm 



I4S 



20.136 A Visitors' Board, comprising District 
Magistrate, Inspector General of Prisons, Deputy 
Director, Health Services, District Judge, as official 
members and one Advocate, one Teacher and two 
ladies from among the puBlic as non-official members 
has been functioning in a regular manner as could 
be seen from the register containing details, of visits 
of the Board or its members to the Jail. 

UTTAR PRADESH 

20.137 All the jails in Uttar Pradesh combined 
can accommodate 35339 prisoners and on June 25, 
1975, 33058 prisoners were already locked, up in 
those jails. As -intimated "by the U.P. Government, 
as many as 7185 persons were detained under MISA 
a£d 126 under. COFEPOSA during the period of 
the emergency. In addition, 24761 persons were 
arrested under the DISIR. Thus, as many as 32072 
persons were sent to jail some time or the other 
during the emergency and this was in addition to the 
normal influx of prisoners. The U.P. Government 
have admitted that all the persons arrested during the 
emergency were accommodated in the existing jails 
and no additional arrangements were made to cope 
with the unusual increase in the jail population. 
Inspection of some of the jails has revealed that cer- 
tain jails like those at Kanpur and Moradabad were 
overcrowded. This was in contrast to the position 
obtaining in the jails at Agra, Nairn and Varanasi 
where the jail population throughout the period of 
the emergency was much less than the authorised 
accommodation, 

20.138 Persons arrested or- detained were kept in 
the same prisons where convicts/under trials had been 
accommodated but in separate barracks. Generally 
MISA detenus, were given superior class. For ex- 
Ministers and prominent political leaders, special 
arrangements had been made for their diet etc. 
COFEPOSA detenus were treated as ordinary class 
prisoners. Necessary screening was done by the 
District Magistrate to prevent anti-social elements 
and criminals from securing superior class facilities. 

20.139 Because of overcrowding in some of the 
jails, many detenus had to sleep on the floor. 

■ 20.140 Sanitary facilities were generally inade- 
quate. 

20.141 The punishment of soutary confinement 
was given for hunger strikers, for raising slogans 
against the Government at the time of flag-hoisting, 
threat of resorting to hunger strikes, etc. MISA 
detenus S/Shri Mahabir Singh, Brahma Saran 
Khanna, S. K. Sharma, S. S. Sarraf , Lala ; Om Parkash 
were awarded solitary confinement for 5 days for 
threatening to go on hunger strike. In District Jail 
Moradabad, MISA detenus S/Shri' Manjoora, Mohd. 
Hussain, Liladhar, Madan, etc. were put in solitary 
confinement for 3 months with fetters when they 
.threatened to go on hunger strike on October 7 
1976. In Central Jail, Varanasi MISA detenus 
Sarvshri Rajendra Kumar,- Kanhiya Lai, Mahesh 
Chand Yadav, Bhagwan and Nand Lai and 28 others 
were put in solitary confinement for three months 
S/25 HA/78— 20 



with fetters when they refused to take food and 
breakfast and raised slogans against the Prime 
Minister, Chief Minister and others. 

20.142 As intimated by the Government, there 
were 7 cases in which detenus were denied normal 
facilities of interview. In 6 out of the 7 cases, 
persons seeking interviews with detenus were denied 
this facility as they were not eligible for the inter- 
views under the rules. In one case interview was 
denied as a measure of punishment because the 
detenu had committed violence in the jail hospital. 

20.143 Newspapers and periodicals as approved 
by the Government were given to the MISA detenus. 
They were also provided with facilities for games and 
recreation. 

20.144 In view of the overcrowding in jails, the 
medical facilities fell far short of requirement. 

20.145 In all, 16 persons held under the MISA 
and 14 persons held under the DISIR, died during 
the period of their incarceration. The U.P. Govern- 
ment have intimated that in all the 16 cases of MISA 
detenus, magisterial inquiry was held to find out 
whether there was any negligence on the part of 
the jail or other authorities. Regarding the death of 
DISIR prisoners, magisterial inquiry was ordered in 
11 cases. In the course of the investigation conduct- 
ed by the officers Of the Commission, it was noticed 
that the family planning programme was over- 
zealously implemented in some of the jails with the 
result that there were many allegations of coercion 
and deception against the jail authorities in the 
implementation of the Family Planning Programme. 

20.146 It may be added here that no uniform' 
practice is followed regarding the use of radios by 
the detenus. While, in Haryana and other- States 
radios were freely permitted to the MISA detenus, 
it was not so permitted in many States including 
Uttar Pradesh. The Commission feels that in the 
eventuality of resort to preventive detention, there 
should be no bar to allowing the detenus using the 
facilities such as their own radios with such restric- 
tions as the Government might prescribe to ensure 
that co-detenus are not inconvenienced. ■ 



WEST BENGAL 

20.147 As against authorised accommodation for 
20237 prisoners in all the jails of West Bengal put 
together, there were 25599 prisoners in the jails in 
that State on June 25, 1975. The number of per- 
sons detained /arrested during the period of the 
emergency was as under :4- 



MISA 

COFEPOSA 

DISIR 



5,320 

80 

2,545 



20.148 The problem of overcrowding was thus* 
considerably aggravated during the emergency. Dete- 
nus, though kept in the same prison, were accommo- 
dated in separate wards. The State Government has 



150 



said that complete segregation was not possible 
due to paucity of space". MISA detenus in Alipore 

h e . nt 2l Ja *J ™ seen t0 have been categorised into 
A , B and C classes. No detenus is said to have 
Been kept in solitary confinement during the period 

nnpSof A 007 ', aIthou S h ^o detenus under 
CU^EPOSA and one under the MISA were said to 
nave been kept in separate cells for reasons of secu- 
rity. Certain restrictions were imposed on prisoners 
following the Presidency Jail escape incident in Feb- 
ruary 1976, when a group of prisoners, allegedly 
Naxahtes, escaped from Jail. On recapture IS 
escapees were put in fetters. 

20.149 3346 detenus received specialised medical 
treatment or were hospitalised during the emergency. 

■ 20^50 11 persons died while under detention. 
ITie Executive Magistrate who had conducted the 
enquiry into the death of Shri R. K. Singh comment- ' 
Sw!^7 7 £? th r e satisfactory arrangements for 
treatment. Two Jail Warders were punished for 
neghgence of duty pursuant to the suS by A„t 
Patra, a prisoner, in June 1976. V 3 

20.151 Pursuant to instructions issued bv the 
Government of India, interviews were being allowed 
to family members of detenus once a week. However 
restnc ions were imposed on Naxalite and o^ther cx- 
tre^t detenus, disallowing .interviews wkh their 

wi aUowe S d PC to \S*$ ^ basl l ° f medicaI ad ™e 
was allowed to th» detenus and Other nrhnnm 

^onmrfanate^rieswerealsoaUowedtrS; 
uncooked food from friends and relatives 

for outdoor games and other JmTnS*, ■ Ia f 11 . lt y 

ANDAMAN 4 NICOBAR ISLANDS 
Wot fail, pS'Btoon ta,iS, P S|j ners ,n ,he «*' 

emergency laws was as under : different 

MISA ■ • 4i r i ... 

• ^i— (including one 

person detained 

twice and one 

detained at Madras) 

. 89 

. Nil 

a three-storeyed buildino- ^htZ il . Blair ls 
™ere are ^«m»?*d , ^«^3S «1I, 



DISIR . 
COFjSPOSA 



^ 20.157 All ""trie MISA detenus were treated as 
Class II prisoners though there was a provision for 
classifying them as Class I detenus on the basis of 
social status, education, etc. Arrangements for cook- 
ing were found to be unsatisfactory. No one was 
awarded solitary confinement during this period. 

22.158 Only one detenu was admitted to Hospital 
tor specialised treatment. As per Andaman and 
Nicobar Islands MISA Rules, 1971, interviews with 
the detenus were granted only once a week and not 
more than three persons at a time could interview 
the detenu. 

22.159 No detenu or prisoner died during the 
period of his incarceration or within one month after 
his release. Newspapers, periodicals and books were 
supplied to the detenus as per rules ond detenus 
were also allowed to bring their private books and 
papers subject to censorship. Although there was lack 
ot open space for outdoor games like volleyball and 
badminton, facilities for some indoor games had been 
provided to them at Government cost. 

ARUNACHAL PRADESH 

20.160 There are no jails in Arunachal Pradesh 
Jherefore there is nothing to report. - ' 

CHANDIGARH 

20.161 As against authorised accommodation for 
110 prisoners there were 98 prisoners in the jail at 
Chandigarh on the eve of the proclamation of the 
Emergency The number of persons arrested/detain- 
ed during the emergency is as under • 



MISA 
DISIR 
COFEPOSA 



27 

74 

1 



i^}°A 62 Som 5 tents w «e pitched inside the mil 
for lodging ordinary prisoners. A separate barrack 

Snus e ^t abl f, f ° r acc ^°^ing the MISA 
detenus. The guest house of the Post Graduate \m 
Mute was declared a s a subsidiary jail in order to 

accommodate Shri Jayaprakash Narayan who was 
ceminf Z M diC K aI trea / m u ent in ^Institute If- 

TrtL MKA m lT ° f the L <^ ati ™ Assembly, 
an otder MISA detenus were given ordinary clasV 
The .Members of Legislative Assembly w^cate'l 
nsed | a s a special class of.detenus. Generally medial 

SriS" rT< n Pr '°t ided t0 . the dete ™ s insfde he 

IT a M?SA th H e ^ °J tf^MSS 
DerinS S?5^ ? ?*?■ had a heart atta <* during ^e 
period of his detention. He died within 24 hour! 
of his release on parole. A magisterial moll* « 
ordered into his death and h7 report of rtJ ?K ™ 
m this regard is awaited. ^ * ° f the mquir * 

the 2 ?amiIv X T^IT™ ***** to the raem ^rs of 
me ramiiy ot the detenus as per rules Tn ««.„: i 

doctor. The detenus were provided facilities for 



ifr-jtsii^u,?^;^ 



151 



cooking. Friends and relatives of MISA detenus 
were permitted to bring food for the detenus. The 
detenus were provided with newspapers. Recrea- 
tional facilities were also made available. 

DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI 

20.164 There is only one sub-jail having an 
authorised accommodation for 20 prisoners. On 
June 25, 1975, there was no prisoner in this jail. 

20.165 During the emergency, two persons were 
detained under the COFEPOSA and 3 were arrested 
under the DISIR. None was detained under the 
MISA. As per the rules, only undertrials and per- 
sons sentenced to imprisonment for periods not ex- 
ceeding 3 months were kept in [his sub-jail. Persons 
sentenced to imprisonment for periods exceeding 
3 months and detenus under COFEPOSA were sent 
to Central Prison, Baroda. It has been reported by 
the State Government that persons detained under the 
COFEPOSA at Baroda were segregated from convicts 
and undertrial prisoners. Detenus under the COFE- 
POSA were treated as Class II prisoners. There 
was no major case of illness requiring specialised 
treatment. Detenus were granted interviews as per 
the- COFEPOSA Rules. Detenus were allowed to 
■obtain food from outside. In certain instances, on 
medical grounds, they were supplied the prescribed 
diet at Government cost. 

20.166 Newspapers and books were made avail- 
able and recreational facilities were provided to the 
detenus at Government cost. 

DELHI 

20.1.67 The subject has been covered in detail 
in Chapter XI of the Second Interim Report of the 

Commission. 



GOA, DAMAN AND DIU 

20.168 The authorised accommodation in all 'the 
jails in Goa combined was for 445 prisoners and the 
jail population as.it stood on June 25, 1975 was 
147. During the Emergency the number of persons 
taken into custody under different emergency laws 
was as under : — 



MISA 
COFEPOSA 



113 
68 



• 20.169 MISA detenus were kept mostly in Central 
Prison at Aguada. 12 MISA detenus, however, were 
transferred to Nasik Prison for lack of sufficient 
accommodation. COFEPOSA detenus were sent to 
prisons outside the Union Territory with a view to 
keeping them away from the area of their operation. 
While Class I detenus were allowed interviews 
once every fortnight, Class II detenus were granted 
interviews once every month. Subsequently, the rules 
were liberalised and interviews were granted 4 times 
in a month. The detenus were permitted to write 
letters and writing materials were supplied at Govern- 
ment cost. Daily newspapers, both in English and in 



regional languages, were also supplied to them. Inter- 
views with legal practioners were also permitted. The 
MISA and COFEPOSA detenus were permitted to 
wear their own clothes and use their own bedding. 
Detenus were allowed tq spend Rs. 50 per month 
for their daily necessities. One MISA detenu was 
kept in solitary confinement for 4 days for violation 
of prison discipline. Similarly a COFEPOSA detenu 
was also kept in solitary confinement for 3 days on 
the same grounds. 

20.170 20 detenus required specialised medical 
treatment and hospitalisation and they were provided 
with the same in the Goa Medical College Hospital; 
Central Jail Goa has only a small dispensary with 
one male nurse to look after the work. A part-time 
doctor from the Primary Health Centre visits the 
Central Jail twice a week. The sub-jails have neither 
a full time doctor, nor a dispensary. A doctor visits 
the jail twice a week only. Cases requiring specialised 
treatment are referred to civil hospital No detenu 
died either during the period of his incarceration or 
within one month after his release on parole. 

20.171 Water supply to the Rels Magos Jail and 
the sub- jails was found to be utterly inadequate. 
The jail well at the base of the hill having dried up, 
the prisoners had to bring water in buckets. The 
Daman jail does not have flush type latrines. 

LAKSHADWEEP 

20.172 As intimated by the Lakshadweep Adminis- 
tration, neither any detention under the MISA -or 
COFEPOSA nor any arrest under the DISIR was 
made during the Emergency. 

MIZORAM 

20.173 As against the authorised accommodation 
for 192 prisoners in the three jails of Mizoram, the 
jail population stood at 381 on June 25, 1975. 
During the emergency the number of persons 
detained/arrested under MISA and DISIR is as 
under :— - 



MISA 
DISIR 



70 
136 



20.174 The problem of overcrowding was thus 
aggravated during the emergency, The administration 
sought to tackle this problem of congestion by trans- 
ferring about 100 prisoners to jails in other States 
and by keeping most of the security prisoners in the 
Camp Jail, Tuirial. This, however, did not lead to 
the desired improvement in the living conditions of 
the prisoners either by way of segregation of under- 
trial prisoners from the convicts or the provision of 
requisite amenities to the higher class prisoners, 
mostly leaders. Security prisoners were categorised as 
Class I and Class II prisoners. MISA detenus were 
provided facilities for cooking and were issued four 
blankets each. No prisoner was put in solitary con- 
finement in any of the jails in Mizoram. Thert was 
no case of death in custody during the period of 
emergency. 

20.175 Medical and sanitary facilities in these 
jails were extremely inadequate. It is seen from' a 



152 



feport from the Medical Officer to the Inspector 
General of Prisons that there were numerous cases of 
diarrhoea, dysentery, fever etc. for which proper 
medical treatment could not be rendered due to lack 
of medical supplies. While there was a number of 
prisoners suffering from mental disease especially 
m the Central Jail at Aizawl, there was no trained 
Psychiatrist available for their treatment. 

PONDICHERRY 

. 20.176 There was accommodation for 2,085 pri- 
soners in the jails in Pondicherry. The number of 
prisoners on June 25, 1975 was only 156. 

20.177 The total number of persons detained or 

taken into custody under emergency laws was 1 15 

54 being under the MISA, 54 under the DISJR 
7 under the COFEPOSA. Persons detained under the 
JJjSA and the COFEPOSA or arrested under the 
DISIR were segregated from convicts and undertrial 
prisoners. The detaining authorities used to classify 



MISA detenus as 'A J , 'B' and 'C Class detenus 
under the Pondicherry Detenu Rules. However, per- 
sons arrested under the DISIR were treated under 
normal jail rules like other undertrial prisoners. 
COFEPOSA detenus were treated in a special cate- 
gory under the Pondicherry Security Prisoners' Order, 
1975. There was no case of solitary confinement. 
Hospital and medical facilities were adequate. One 
detenu under the COFEPOSA, who required spe- 
cialised medical treatment for skin disease, was 
given this treatment. There was no case of death 
of a detenu or a prisoner during emergency while 
under detention or within a month after his release. 
The State Government also reported that detenus were 
granted regular, interviews in accordance with the 
rules. MISA and COFEPOSA detenus were allowed 
to supplement their diet at their own cost. Detenus 
were also permitted to cook their own food if they 
so desired. Newspapers, both in English and Verna- 
cular and Weeklies were supplied to the detenus. 
Recreational facilities including some indoor games 
were provided to the detenus. Detenus were allowed 
to listen to radio broadcasts. 



msnsracroEE35SKlB 



CHAPTER XXI 
Implementation of the Family Planning Programme during the Emergency 



In a background note on family planning prog- 
ramme during the period of emergency furnished 
to this Commission by the Ministry of Health and 
Family Welfare, it is stated that : — 

"The family planning programme in India is 
implemented in the 'field through the 
State Governments a's a Centrally spon- 
sored scheme for which hundred per cent 
Central assistance is being provided to 

the States on an assured basis The 

Central assistance is being provided to 
overall policy guidelines... The actual 
implementation rests with the States ..." 

Voluntary nature of the Family Planning programme 

21.2 The manner in which the family planning 
programme should be implemented in the States 
has also been receiving attention of the Ministry 
of Health and Family Planning from time to time 
and guidelines in this regard figured in various 
pronouncements and papers emanating from the 
Ministry. Dr. Karan Singh, the then Union Minister 
of Health while inaugurating the Central Family 
Planning Council meeting on April 5, 1974, stated 
as under : — 

"While the fixing of targets is useful to guide 
the workers on the level of achievement 
strategies have to be developed to see that 
the people themselves readily accept the 
programnie without any compulsion. Fami- 
ly planning must be a voluntary and 
people's programme., . Motivation,, per- 
suasio.n and creating health and family 
planning consciousness in the country is 
one side of our effort. The other side is 
the provision of services *■ > 



21.3 Similarly, a paper prepared by Lhe Ministry 
of Health and Family Planning and placed before 
the meeting of the Family Planning Council on 
April 5, 1974 emphasizes the voluntary nature of 
the programme in the following words : : — 



...Since sterilisation is a permanent method 
and averts a large number of births even- 
tually, . as compared to other methods, 
greater importance is sometimes attached 
to this method by the officials at all levels 
although it is not strictly in keeping with 
our policy of 'Cafeteria Approach'. There 
should be no compulsion about or insis- 
tence' on any particular method or device 



out of various available methods because 
local conditions and people's preferences 
vary from place to place . . . The aim 
should be to protect the targeted number 
of reproductive couples against the . risk 
of pregnancy, leaving the final choice of 
the contraceptive method, to the couples 
themselves. 

Change in the voluntary nature of the programme 
during the emergency 

21.4 The voluntary nature of the programnie as 
adopted by the Government of India till about 
1974 appears to have undergone a* change during 
the period of emergency as appears from a note 
dated October 10, 1975 sent by Dr. Karan Singh, 
the then Union Health Minister to the then .Prime 
Minister on the subject of "Crash programme to 
intensify family planning". An extract from this 
note is given below : — 

" . . . . The problem is now so serious that 
there seems to be no alternative but to 
think in terms of introduction of some 
element of compulsion in the larger na- 
tional interest .... While I am not at this 
stage advocating compulsion, it is essen- 
tial that our policy should exhibit the 
determination of the Government to bring 
home the realisation of the importance ot 
the containment of population to indivi- 
dual families, t This can be done by en- 
forcing a judicious and carefully selected 
mixture of incentives and disincentives . . . 
The present emergency, and the declara- 
tion of the 20-point economic programme 
by the Prime Minister; have provided an 
appropriate .atmosphere for tackling the 
problem. . . ." 

21.5 A change in the approach of the Govern- 
ment of India* is also evidenced by the proceedings 
of the meeting of the Consultative Committee of 
MPs attached to the Ministry of Health and Family 
Planning held on January 20, 1976, in which 
Dr. Karan Singh spoke of some sort of compulsion 
in regard to the implementation of the family plan- 
ning programme. An extract from the minutes, of .this 
meeting reads as under . ;— 

. . ., "....The Chairman added that so fat 
the family planning programme had been . 
voluntary in nature but a point had been 



153 



reached when it was necessary to intro- 

Sam£ ?T% r$^l Produced such 
Z sSl\ CentraI G ° ver °ment would 
Soffit =* ° f ° ther States 

ad^ft^^ 1116 ' 11116 ' Smt - Indira Gandhi, 
she observed :— . - anuary 22, 1976, where 

KrV^P 6 must now act decisively and 
bring down the birth rate speedily to pre- 
vent the doubling of our popSon £\ 

totic fn m , Ch ^ - be described, as 
Win iw Personal rights have to be 
*? n S- bey t nce '- for * e huma " rights of 

S&SSl * nght t0 Iive > the r * ht to 

seeMnl th^rS^ in a note dated March 5, 1976 
aS^f SL ? bmet s a PP roval > W«- «&, to a pack- 
age of incentives and disincentives for cStal 
Government employees, it was stated hvlu"- 
try of Health & P FiniI y p£Xl* MlmS " 

1^U; T ° SU ^ U P» Judged by the level of 

o?ir« S r ^ nd ^ e great leewa y tha < «- 

qunres to be made up if the desired re- 
duction m the fertility is to be brought 

achieved, it is necessary to go beyond the 
purely voluntary approach in the famSy 
planning programme " y 

onuJ^\tl976^ nmrT " d QueSti0n No " 373 



154 



2EJE * demo r a PWc situation in the 
coun^seems to justify the introduction 
l^ am - prCSSUrc for Ae ad °!*ion of a 

quality of life to the citizens is brouffht 
about as early as possible." ^ 

rvS5 t^ 6 *** above P r °™uncements of the 

gramme, sS GianVL^ ST&egfffiK 

M J!? C S M ? ae My Such shift « the policy of IS' 
Ministry. Relevant portion of * detailed note „»£? 
ed by him and approved by the Union HealSffiL 
ter prior to his leaving the Ministry as iSSHn 



ftS£&££l ^ kash datcd March ^ w 

of 'th'^r^ bC mcati ^ ncd *W the policy 
uL? e , Governr "ent of India has always 
been to promote family planning as a 
voluntary measure, because the whole pro- 
gramme has been conceived as a family 
welfare programme. It has been the con- 

Sld fif e i^ W 0f the Government of Ma 
m the Ministry of Health and FamUy Pkn- 

™J^L^ r< ? gh ? roper motivation and 

availability or services. . ..." 

ACC 7r a Zne ermSa ' i0n * ** kmil > P'""«"S P'o- 

This is evidenced by the figures furnished t o?h e 
Commission by the Ministry «f w* Q itiTTT ^ ., 
Welfare according to SchieS St of'stSSst 
uoa targets was to the extent of 107 per Stj 

2j J "f I976 - 77 respectively covering the entire 

pistils 

miV £*&«% in hls ^«S5^ 

menLned thaf:l G ° VCrninems in which he ^ 

L' V;Sr^ C hav ?- ^^ far exceeded 
adliSf ^ sterilisati °™> it would be 
' morftf™ 1???^ du "ng the next, 
month on the distribution of condoms and 
promote of acceptance of IUD and other 
methods, as acceptance of these methods 
has jiot been very satisfactory ..." 

?3w l 2* r ' .however, was issued only on January- 15 
imnL ?, en - the gap > ** achievement of Site 
among various methods of family plannrL E5 
already assumed abnormal proportion; g 

Fixation of sterilisation targets for 1916-11 hv tk* 

that atarL^f T? 5-m Iy WeIfare hav e stated 
for 1Q7??7 f P' tmR i on sterilisations was fixed 

lormuia adopted for working out the tareet* of 
aehtevemem in the family pfanmng progSe at 



mnasaso gemsBgasaassa a 



155 



the National level and allocation of the targets to 
States and Union Territories was devised in 1975 
by the Central Family Planning Council of which all 
the States and Union Territories Health Ministers 
are members and the Union Minister of Health 
is the Chairman. The relevant portion of the resolu- 
tion parsed by the Central Family Planning Council 
- at its meeting held on April 17/19, 1975 is repro- 
duced below : — ■ 

'The revised formula suggested for work- 
ing out the targets is more scientific and 
the targets worked out according to this 
formula may be adopted. The realisation 
of these targets will require greater com- 
mitment and leadership at all levels.'. ." 

21.12 The State-wise sterilisation targets for 
1976-77 which were mentioned as provisional and 
which according to the Central Family Planning 
Council s resolution were worked out on a scientific 
basis, were high compared to those fixed in the 
earlier years. In fact, in his d.o. letter 
No. 23011/20/76-Ply dated May 7/10, 1976 to all 
the Chief Secretaries, the : Union Health Secretary 
mentioned that : — - ~ 

" the targets fixed for the year 1976- 

77 are fairly high and can be achieved 

only by maintaining the tempo and enthu- 
siasm shown in the closing months of the 
last year . . . ." 

Further, the Special Secretary, Ministry of Health 
observed on his d.o. letter No. 23011/20/76-Ply 
dated June 15, 1976 to the Chief Secretaries 
that : — 

"... .in view of the high targets set for 
the current year, stupendous efforts will 
need to make from the very beginning ot 
the year in a well organised manner. Un- 
less the whole administrative machinery 
is geared up and the same tempo and 
enthusiasm as was shown in the closing 
months of the last year is maintained^ it 
may be difficult to achieve the targets..." 

It was thus felt at the highest levels in the Ministry 
of Health & Family Planning that the sterilisation 
targets for 1976-77 were high and would require 
stupendous efforts to fulfil. Even so, according to 
information furnished by the Ministry of Health and 
Family Welfare and the State Governments to the 
Commission, these targets were subsequently raised 
to higher levels by a number of State Governments , 
e.g. Bihar (3 lakhs to 6 lakhs), Haryana (52,000 
to 2 lakhs), Himachal Pradesh (31.500 to 1 lakhs) 
Maharashtra (5.62 lakhs to 12 lakhs), Madhva 
Pradesh (2.675 lakhs to 7 lakhs), Rajasthan (1 75 
lakhs to 3,5 Takhs) , Punjab (46,500 to 2.5 lakhs) 
Uttar Pradesh (4 lakhs to 15 lakhs), West Bengal 
(3.92 lakhs to 11 lakhs) and Delhi (29,000 to 1 
lakh). Even though all these State Governments 
revised the targets by 100 per cent and more barring 
Assam, Maharashtra and Delhi, none of the other 
State Governments or Union Territories had ex- 
ceeded the targets for the previous year by more 
than 40 per cent. Moreover, the Governments of 



Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajas- 
than and Uttar Pradesh who raised their targets for 
the year 1976-77 by 100 per cent to 300 per cent 
had not even achieved their respective targets in 
full for the previous year i.e. 1975-76. On the 
other hand, on a request from the Government of 
Haryana, the State's sterilisation target for 1975- 
76 was reduced by the Ministry of Health & Famflv 
Welfare. from 74,300 to 45,000. • 

21.13 In this connection, Shri Gian Prakash has 
said m his detailed note of 24th March, 1977 : 

"The Government of India in the Ministry 
of Health & Family Planning had, after 
taking into consideration all factors, 
set a target of 4.3 million sterilisations 
for the financial year 1976-77. The States, 
however, decided to give to themselves a 
higher target. They . were advised from 
time to time not to indulge in excesses 
and not to overstrain themselves in this 
regard. When the Union Health Secretary 
visited Lucknow on November 22, 1976, 
he held discussions with the Chief Secret 
tary and other officers of the Government 
of Uttar Pradesh and advised them not to 
fix a target of 15 lakhs which the Gov- 
ernment of Uttar Pradesh had set for 
itself. Health Secretary told them that the 
Government of India would be very 
happy if the Government of U,P. could 
achieve their target of 4 lakhs. He also 
warned them that there should be no 
excesses or coercion of any type in the 
promotion of family planning. Similarly, 
Special Secretary and Commissioner 
(Family Planning) advised other States 
during their tours that the States should 
ensure quality of service and not pitch up 
targets so high as to result in overstrain- 
ing of the services. In a letter written 
by Smt. Serla Grewal on September 9, 
1976, this point was specifically empha- 
sised. In several circulars issued from time 
to time emphasis was also laid on simul- 
taneous provision of services and post- 
operative care " 

21.14 The records of the Ministry of Health and 
Family Welfare were scrutinised to ascertain the 
role played by the Ministry in restraining the con- 
cerned State Governments from pitching up targets 
far in excess of those allocated to them by the Cen- 
tral Government. The Ministry's file pertaining to 
the visit of Union Health Secretary to Lucknow and 
Kanpur on 22nd and 23rd November, 1976 (men- 
tioned in his note above) contains a brief tour note 
on the above said visit Wit there is nothing on the 
file to show that any advice was tendered to the 
State authorities against upward revision of targets. 
The letter dated September 9, 1976 written by Smt" 
Serla Grewal, Joint Secretary, to Health Secretaries 
of all the State Governments, referred to in the 
Health Secretary's note also does not contain any 
specific advice or direction to the State, Health De- 
partments against upward revision of targets. The 



156 



letter,; however, laid emphasis on the availability of 
technical, services, as may be seen from the follow- 
ing extracts :— 

". v .The increasing work load will need 
additional service facilities particularly 
with regard to the equipments, linen faci- 
lities for autoclaving and sterilization. . . 
You will appreciate that in order that 
service facilities are maintained at high 
■ standard throughout, we must provide 
additional' needs at the earliest so that the 
existing facilities are not stressed to a 
point where a compromise has to be made 
with safety of the acceptors. 

"So long the additional facilities are not 
provided, please ensure that the number of 
cases operated in a day at any service 
centre are consistent with the technical 
facilities available there. Doctors should 
not be compelled to operate all the cases 
the same day, if the required facilities by 
way of sterilized linen, dressing etc. are 
not available. 

"It is needless to remind you that increas- 
ed work load should not be allowed to 
affect the aseptic precautions which are 
taken as the accepted procedures. Any 
negligence in this aspects may lead to 
greater problems in the form of post ope- 
rative complications. .. ." 

21.15 The files relating to the tours of othei 
senior officers of the Health Ministry made avail- 
able to the Commission do not contain anything to 
show that the Central Health Ministry tried to 
dissuade the State Governments from upward revi- 
sion of the targets. On the other hand, the commu- 
nications of the Ministry to the State Governments 
reveal the aTixiety on the part of the Ministry to 
k «P up the tempo of sterilisation in the States. This 
will be evident from the following communications 
from Smt. Serla Grewal to the Health Departments 
of the States : — 

(a) In her d.o. letter No. 15-38/76-PA, dated 
December 20, 1976 to Health Commissioner, U.P., 
it has been mentioned, inter alia, that : — 

"(1) The daily average of sterilisation cases 
had gone down as compared to previous 
months. A watch should be kept to ensure 
that after the sowing and harvesting work 
is over the daily average goes up . . . . " 

In another note relating to her visit to Uttar Pradesh 
in September 1976, Mrs. Serla Grewal has men- 
tioned : — 

". . . .Targets have been given separately 
to District Collectors and separately to 
Chief Medical Officers. At this rate of pro- 
gress, there is expectation of about 12 lakh 
?g°77 sterilisation s by the end of March 

• •• -One healthy trend is rhaf tubectomy 
operations are. also declining while the 



.vasectomy operations are on the increase. 
Vasectomies are 5 times that of tubecto- 
mies. This is one reason despite the poor 
infrastructure in U.P. with regard to steri- 
lisations, the programme has caught up. 
By the end of this month, there is every 
likelihood of the State achieving the target 
fixed for it for whole year " 

(b) In her tour report relating to her visit to' Bihar 
on 5th and 6th September, 1976, she has 
mentioned :-. — 

"... .Joint Secretary said that if adjoining 
State like U.P. can perform 1.2 lakhs of 
sterilisations in one month, why can't Bihar 
come up to it ? " 

(c) Smt. Grewal's tour 'report dated December 
30, 1976 on her visit to Bhbpal, which was seen 
by the Health Secretary and the Health Minister is 
also relevant and an extract thereof is given 
below : — 

"• • —J* may be mentioned that Madhya 
Pradesh has already crossed 8 lakhs in 
sterilisation and the Chief Minister empha- 
tically told me that there will be no diffi- 
culty in reaching the target of 12 lakhs by 
March 31. He also took great pride in 
mentioning to me that in his State there 
was not a single instance of force -being 
used. . . . The manner in which the work 
has been done this year leaves one in no 
doubt that in case the same tempo conti- 
nues and the drive remains sustained at the 
political as well as administrative levels 
there would be no doufc that Madhya 
Pradesh will reach the targets it has assign- 
ed for itself for 1977-78 and 1978-79 
The infrastructure of the State is very poor 
so far as Health and Family Planning 
services are concerned and despite that 
the State has done very well. To maintain 
this, there is a very great need for sterngth- 
enmg the services for which I emphasfsed 
the State Government to take immediate 
steps to avail all the facilities which the 
Goyernment-of India are providing to the 
States so that it should come up at par with 
other States in this respect ..." 

the 2 Ministrv iS nf e ^^r ^.communications that 
trie Ministry of Health recognised the upward revi- 
sion of targets by the State Governments rS 
as the directions and observations of the H™ahh 
™Tl7i° the State Governments were with refer 
^StSe^ ^ **"* ° f ****** ^ i by 

taJetsL^ U ^f ir ^ bility0f u P ward ^vision of 

th? report nf ?^?r G ° Ver T ents was nientioned in 
ine report of Intelligence Bureau entiled "FamiTv 

ternoer 24 1976 which was broueht out in th* ™»£, 
St a rp?° r ^ abOU , £ resistaDce t0 &4pta£.ta some 
Sow:- 6 rdeVam «*«*.<* W reports 

". . . .While the family planning campaign 
is proceeding smoothly in most ™ te? 



157 



certain hostile reaction have come to 
notice in some, particularly U.P. and to a 
lesser extent in Bihar, West Bengal and 
Maharashtra. An analysis of the various 
factors leading to hostile reactions, which 
had sometimes resulted in breaches of law 
and order, shows that the governmental 
agencies as well as the obscurantist and 
communal elements were responsible for 
them. One of the important reasons which 
has led to adverse reactions is the fixation 
of high targets by certain States in vast 
disproportion to those fixed by Government 
of India. For example, U.P. Government 
has raised the target of sterilisation from 
4 lakhs, which was fixed by- Government 
of India to 15 lakhs for the year 1976-77 
and West Bengal from 3.25 lakhs to 10 
lakhs. The short time available for realis- 
ing the target and the. vast gap between the 
figures already achieved and yet to be 
achieved have led to certain administrative 
steps resulting in undesirable and in some 
instances disastrous consequences 
Government of India may, therefore con- 
sider the advisability of prescribing a cer- 
tain permissible percentage beyond the 
fixed target for each category of family 
r - ::nmg programme (Sterilisation/ 10 D 
:^sertions/ota: methods) so that the State 
Governments need not be tempted to aim 
at unattainable target figures by resorting 
to unhealthy practices ." 

' w^ 8 ?! report was sent to the Ministry of 
Ifrf oSf^l Plann J ng ' * nd > m lamination 
: me r ^^S^S:^ he f ° Il0Wing n ° te '» 

"Minister may like to see the note received 
irom the Intelligence Bureau on the 'Family 
Planning Programme— An Assessment' 
placed below. . . .In order to discuss thi 
problems raised in the note of the Intelli- 
gence Bureau and take remedial action 

mSIt St J h S ^kt« may Mndly take a 
meeting of the Home Secretary, Informa- 
tion and Broadcasting Secretary and the 
Director, Intelligence Bureau. ' He may 
kindly give a date. y 

Sd/- Gian Prakash 
October 4, 1976. 

P*ber m a a t y i0 m 3 e 0aS OrmaUy ° n Wed »«day 20th 

Sd/- Dr. Karan Singh 
' 5-10-1976." 

October 2(F ™ m - eetin S as Proposed was held on 
■i S P> nor 1S an y record of such m^tl™ 

nin a " ab No n offi c ^ niStry ° f ^ ^^ "amity 'S 
"2 hr -° officiaI communication was issued frn™ 
the Ministry of Health and Family Plain hf tc , £2 
State Governments in regard to revision Sf targets 

S/25 HA/78— 21 ^rgeis 



on the basis of this report. In his letter dated Oct- 
ober 11, 1976 to the State Chief Ministers, Dr. Karan 
Singh had, m fact, congratulated them on the very 
satisfactory achievements on the family planning 
front and asked them to ensure that only eligible 
persons were motivated and particular attention was 
paid to post-operative care of the acceptors. 

? ^0 E xam |nation of the records of the Ministry 
?C u?. h and Famil y Planning further reveals that 
the Ministry not only chose to give the State Govern- 
ments a free hand in the matter of setting up higher 
targets for themselves but also complimented *the 
State Governments which exceeded their original 
allocated targets by wide margin. In support of this 
an extract from d.o. letter No. U. 12019/1/77-MEM 
dated January 4, 1977 of Smt. Serla Grewal to the 
Mate Chief Secretaries is reproduced below : 

"It may not be much of an exaggeration 
to say that 1976 was the year of Family 
Planning m India. Thanks to the direction 
encouragement and support which we 
received from our worthy Ministers and 
the cooperation of the people, we were 
able to break new ground right in the 
beginning of the calendar year. Later in 
April, when the National Population Policy 
was announced, the programme gathered 
greater force and the performance graph 
has ever since been moving upwards. Most 
of the States have overreached the targets 
that were fixed for them; in the case of 
some, the performance has been more than 
200 per cent of the goals assigned. AH 
this shows that people by and large-are 
wiJImg to accept the programme. . 

Similarly a box item published in December 1976 
2l\ 0t $\^T try 'l Publication "Centre Calling" 
also bights the achievements in th & farmty plan- 
ning programme as under :— y p 

"NEW DIMENSIONS-Tne programme 
performance during the current ySrhS 

tory of the family planning programme 
have the States achieved the naSonfl sto 

i^ IO n t ta^g r^ ma^ifoId ' ^ ranges from 
7 °° Per cent to more than 100 per cent 
in an over-whelming majority of the States 
and that too in eight months ...» 

mlil boost' Wft * he faCt ? rs res P°nsible for 
giving a ooost to the implementat on of the famihr 

March 24, 1977, mentioned as under:— 

1* Va 1 wa ?' howev cr, nowhere sussested 
^ there shouid be any coercion of force 
used m the promotion of family nLS 
programme because it was felt that S 
of to kind would be counter-proSut 

21.22 HoweveT, in their reply to the rnm«,' • , 
q U e S t,onnaire on Fami]y HaL^SfefeS 



158 



of Bihar have given the following version of the 
Health Ministry's role in activising the family plan- 
ning programme in Bihar : — 

"... .Shri Gian Prakash, the then Secre- 
. , ,tary in the Union Ministry of Health and 
Family Planning and Mrs. Serla Grewal 
Commissioner, Family Planning visited 
Bihar in mid January, 1976. They did some 
plain talking to the senior officers of the. 
Health Department and also to the Chief 
Medical Officers. The meeting addressed by 
them is still remembered as the most un- 
pleasant meeting held at the State level. 
It is said that the Secretary, Union Ministry 
of Health took to task the CMO s whose 
performance was not upto the mark. He 
went so far as to say that the poor perfor- 
mance in family planning amounted to a 
criminal and anti-national act. The import 
of the words during emergency conditions 
could not have been los; on all concerjied 
who attended the meeting. ..." 

21.23 Shri Gian Prakash has described his tour 
to Bihar on 16th and 17th January, 1976 in his tour 
report as under : — 

"I paid a visit to Bihar on the 16th and 

17th January, 1976 I had a long 

meeting with the Health Minister. I appris- 
ed him of the poor performance of Bihar 
in the matter of family planning and other 
health services. Bihar is carrying over 400 
vacancies of doctors at various levels in the 
PHCs and Urban Family Planning Centres, 
There are also a large number of vacancies 
in the ANMs and LHVs. Immunisation and 
MCH services are ill-organised with the 
result .that it is adversely affecting the 
family planning programme. The doctors, 
para-medical workers and FP Health 
Assistants and others connected with family 
planning are not taking any interest what- 
soever. The Health Minister assured me 
that they proposed to take drastic action 
against doctors and other para-medical 
workers not improving their performance 
and that they have already served notices 
on bad heads. ... On my return to Patna, 
T&£ long raeetin S wi th the Chief Medi- 
cal Officers of the Districts as well as other 

senior officers of the Department of Health 
and family Planning and discussed with 
them various problems. I have also warned 
tnem that in case the performance does 
not improve, the Government of India 
would be constrained to cut down the assis- 
gnce that is being made available to the 
Mate for family planning programme I 
was assured by the Director of Health Ser- 
S^ f Ji3 V n f r the Commissioner and 
S fo « and Family Planning 
Shn Nathen that they would improve thek 
performance and. would take effective ac- 
fcon against the staff not showing interest 
m family planning and other services '• 



Copies of the above tour report were also seri,t 
to the Cabinet Secretary and Secretary to the Prime 

Minister. 

21.24 As regards the effect that the visit of Shri 
Gian Prakash the then Health Secretary to Bihar and 
his tour report had on the family planning pro- 
gramme in Bihar, the State Government in its reply 
to the Commission has mentioned as under : — 

"...Perhaps the political executive of the 
State too had been pulled up by the Cen- 
tral Authority round about the time when 
the Congress "Session was held at Chandi- 
garh, It was learnt that the Secretary, 
Ministry -of Health" after his visit in Janu- 
ary 1976 had submitted a very damaging 
report about family planning in Bihar to 
the Cabinet Secretary. The then Bihar 
Minister (Health), Shri B. P. Dubey took 
up himself to energise the Health Depart- 
ment machinery for the task of achieve- 
ment of the target after the Chandigarh 
Session. He personally undertook whirl- 
wind tours of Districts where CMOs of 
the Districts whose performance was not 
satisfactory were pulled up publicly by 
him and in Districts where performance 
was satisfactory, they were rewarded or 
commended-. ..." 

Incentives and Disincentives 

21.25 That the approach of the'Mimstry of Health 
and Family Planning was to bring pressure to bear 
on the people to accept family planning through 
incentives and disincentives is brought out in the 
following extracts from a note dated March 5, 1976 
submitted by that Ministry for the consideration of 
the 'Cabinet : — 

" The approach of the Central Gov- 
ernment in regard to the family planning 
programme so far ha s been that it is a 
purely voluntary programme. However, 
the present demographic situation justifies 
the introduction of stronger measures 'of 
State action for the adoption of fertility 
control by the people. Short of legal com- 
pulsion, a judicious package of incentive 
and disincentive measures is called 
for. . . ." 

21.26 The package of such measures of incentives 
and disincentives was not fully spelt out bv the 
Mimstry of Health and Family Planning. The States 
were given freedom of action to adopt such measures 
as may be seen from the following extracts from 

if irS? Population Policy announced on April 
1 6, 1976 '.— — 

"Some States have also introduced a series 
of measures directed, towards their emp- 
loyees and other citizens in the matter of 
preferential allotment of houses, loans etc 
for those who have accepted family planl' 
mng. In this sphere also, we have decided 
to leave to each individual State to intro- 
duce such measures as they consider neces- 
sary and desirable " 



159 



21.27 A number of State Governments and Union 
Territories Administrations introduced schemes of 
incentives and disincentives to promote the small 
family norm among the public and their own emp- 
loyees. This important aspect of the programme was 
left completely to the discretion of the State Govern- 
ments, and there was no uniformity of approach in 
regard the adoption of the various measures by the 
State Governments. In fact, there was a divergence 
of, approach even in regard to the small family norm 
concept 1 itself. While the schemes of some States 
such as Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, contem- 
plated limitation of family after three children, those 
of some others like Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, 
Himachal Pradesh,-provided -for limiting the family 
after two children. Even though the Central Govern- 
ment itself adopted the three children norm of 
family for its own employees vide Notification dated 
September 4, 1976, the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanga- 
than, an organisation under the Central Government 
adopted a more stringent family norm when it issued 
the following instructions to all Principals, Kendriva 
Vidyalayas on October 19, 1976 for strict 
compliance :— 

"Children of parents who have two or 
more children and have not undergone 
sterilisation of either parent should not be 
entitled to seek admission in kendriya 
Vidyalayas." 

There were also wide variations in the definition 
of a person eligible for sterilisation in the States 
and Union Terrtories. While some States provided 
for the upper age limit for eligibility of a male for 
sterilisation; in others no age limit was prescribed 
for this purpose. 

. 21.28 Similarly, the State Governments differed 
; widely with each other in regard to the time factor 
required for enforcement of the measures pertaining 
to disincentives. While the Central Government itself 
provided for a clear time lag of 10 months before 
the disincentives became operative against the public 
servants under the Central Government, some of the 
State Governments and Union Territories brought 
the measures pertaining to disincentives in force with 
immediate effect. The Union Territory of Delhi 
witnessed a peculiar situation in which the Govern- 
ment servants were treated differently depending 
upon whether they belonged to Delhi Administration 
or the Central Government. Delhi Administration 
employees were required to adopt two children 
family norm and the disincentives were brought in 
force with immediate effect whereas the Central 
Government employees living in Delhi itself were 
required to adopt three children farnily norm and 
disincentives were to come into force 10 months 
after the notification. 

21.29 The Central Government's stand on this 
subject is contained in the following answer given by 
the Deputy Minister of Health and Family Planning 
tO ; Lpk Sabha Unstayed Question No 343 on 
*-'— usj 12, 1976 : — 
"(a)...... 

(b) The State Governments/UTs have devised 
their Own schemes of disincentives which 



are broadly in the shape of denial of cer- 
tain privileges and concessions like mater- 
nity leave, loans/ and advances for different 
purposes, allotment of. accommodation/ 
land, free medical treament, freeships/ 
education allowance for children and emp- 
loyment opportunities to those Govern- 
ment servants and members of the general 
public, as the case may be, who do not 
limit their family to a prescribed number 
of children or fail to undergo 'sterilisation. 

(c) According to the National population 
policy announced on 16th April 1976, 
a copy of which was laid on the Table 
of the Lok Sabha, it has been decided to 
leave it to each individual State to intro- 
duce such measures towards their emp- 
loyees and other citizens in the matter of 
preferential allotment of houses, loans etc., 
as they considered necessary and desirable. 
The measures adopted by the State Gov- 
ernments are broadly in keeping with the 
spirit and intention of National population 
policy. 

(d) " 

21.30 Examination of the records of the 
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare reveals that 
attention of the Ministry was drawn by the Prime 
Minister's Sectt. to measures against non-acceptors 
of Family Planning Programme adopted by the 
Government of Himachal' Pradesh. The measures 
which were described as rather harsh by the then 
Prime Minister were spelt out in the fortnightly letter 
dated November 2, 1976 from the Governor of 
Himachal Pradesh to the President' of India, rele- 
vant extracts from which are reproduced below ; 

"In addition to the package of incentives 
, : , i; ; . and , disincentives , , . the State Govt, ha ve 
decided to make family planning obliga- 
tory for all Govt, employees. A Govt, 
servant having two children of different 
sexes would be considered' an 'eligible 

P^son' The State Government has 

also approved 'The Himachal Pradesh 
Government Servants (Special Provisions 
relating to Family Planning) Rules' 
incorporating the incentives and disincen- 
tives announced by the Government in 
this regard. Under these rules, an 'eligible 
person' who fails to get himself or his 
spouse sterilised within three months 
from the commencement of these rules, 
will be disqualified in respect of the 
following : (a) earning of annual incre- 
ment or crossing, efficiency bar ; (b) 
confirmation and promotion ; (c) medical 
reimbursement or treatment at Govt. 
Hospitals ; (d) allotment of Govt, accom- 
modation. In case a person is already 
residing in, a Govt, accommodation, he 
will be required to pay the market rent 
or six-times the standard rent' whichever 
is higher; (e) Govt, loans including 
GPF advances ; and (f) maternity leave 
in the case of women employees." 



160 



21.31 The. remarks of the Prime Minister on 
the above letter were conveyeS to the Ministry vide 
a note- dated November 10, 1976 as under :— 

'> **>.*.•" Tne Prime Minister has remarked 
that the Family Planning Rules seem to 
be rather harsh ; we should get informa- 
tion from all States and try to have a 
more reasonable attitude. 

This may kindly be brought to the 
attention of the Minister of Health and 
, Family Planning. 

Sd. N. S. Sreeramaa 
Private Secretary to the Prime Minister.* 

On this reference, the following notings were 
made m the Department of Family Planning file ;— 

"Minister may kindly see. Each State 
seems to be issuing orders according 
■to ^their own thinking with the results 
that there is no uniformity. It may be 
advisable for Secretary to 
Chief Secretaries about the 
of adopting the Central 
, rules- in the subject. 



Sd. 



address the 

advisability 

Government 



Ajoy Bagchi 
11-11-1976." 

"Minister would like to discuss it with 

Secretary, 

Sd. Ajoy Bagchi 

11-11-1976." 
Secretary 

"Spoken to Minister. We may consolidate 
the information from the States. 

Sd. Gian Prakash 

17-11-1976 

Sd. Karan Singh 

17-11-1976." 

21.32 Variations in the schemes of incentives/ 
disincentives adopted by the . State Governments 
and review thereof in the Ministry of HeSTand 
Family Planning, have been clarified £ a note 
furnished to the Commission bythe MnStr? 5 
Health and Family Welfare, GdvernmenfS flldia 
relevant extract of which is reproduced below ^ 



*** 



**# 



*#* 



rVn' t ; i o effort had been made by the 
central Government to impose any uni- 
lorm pattern on the States as the 
conditions in the States varied to a verv 
large extent . . Obviously, there was 
no occasion to review the scheme of 
mcentives and disincentives adopted by 

tte cf£Tr tate Gov&r *»ents before 
the Central Government had finalised its 

SEJ£ W * ■*? respect of cbdw&S 

ernment employees. Once the Central 
Government had finalised the scheme 



and adopted it, it was circulated' to the 
States and in these instructions it was also 
mentioned that 'the States/UTs and 
public sector undertakings may consider 
adopting similar measures in respect 
of their employees' ... It will be seen 
that the note from P.M's Secretariat 
regarding the harshness of Himachal Pra- 
desh disincentives was received approxi- 
mately around the same time when the 
Central Govt, scheme of disincentives 
was finalised and adopted; The question 
of reviewing the disincentive schemes of 
the States was specifically taken up on 
receipt of the P.M's note " 

21.33 Even as information about the varying 
schemes of incentives/disincentives was being 
collected, from the Stales/Union Territories, the 
Ministry of Health and Family Planning received 
a note dated February 18, 1977 from the Prime 
Minister's Sectt. directing that all disincentives which 
; linked sterilisation to the availability of normal facili- 
ties' should be reviewed and withdrawn. Examination 
of the file of the P.M's Sectt. from which the above 
said note dated February IS, 1977 was issued 
reveals that the withdrawal of certain disincentives 
was ordered after the declaration of Lok Sabha 
Elections of 1977. The following note from the 
above file duly approved by Smt. Indira Gandhi- 
former PM supports this contention : — 

"It has been categorically stated that 
there can be and will be no compulsion in 
the family planning movement. 
We are receiving letters that unless the 
orders issued by several Govts./Public 
agencies making sterilisation a condition 
for availing facilities in the case of those 
with two or more children, are withdrawn 
immediately, people will not believe the 
announcements/manifesto, ■-'"'' y 

The schemes of incentives and disincen- 
tives have to continue. But, in their over 
enthusiasm, several administrations pushed 
the disincentive part to the point of 
compulsion. To cite only one example 
while Keudriya Vidyalaya Sangatnan 
could have said that admission will in 
future, not be given to the 3rd or 4th 
child onwards, they went to the extent of 
laying down that if a person has two 
children or more, none of his children will 
be given admission, unless he produced a 
sterilisation certificate— thus making it 
fflfy^PUipMe. Non-issue of 
dnving licences excepting on production 
of sterilisation certificate is another 
example. «uuuier 

E,L S s " bmitt ^ d ^at to be in consonance 
with the policy decision, and to cdunter 
propaganda regarding credibility etc., trie 

(i) the ^ Maharashtra Bill pending with 



mam&ikm 



161 



(ii) all administrative units may be advised 
to immediately withdraw those ins- 
tructions/orders which make sterilisa- 
tion, a condition precedent for avail- 
ing of any facilities etc. 



Sd/- 



V. Ramachandran 
JS-1 

17-2-1977 



Secy. 



Sd/- 



P. N. Dhar 

17-2-1977 



P.M. 



Yes. 



Sd/- Indira Gandhi 
17^2-1977." 

21.34 The disincentives which had earlier been 
declared to be "broadly in keeping with the 
spirit and intention of the National Population 
policy on the floor of the Lok Sabha were now 
sought to be hastily withdrawn by the Ministry of 
Health & Family Planning who addressed the State 
Government to this effect. The withdrawal of 
disincentives in this manner, drew a sharp' 
/reaction in the following words of Chief Secretary 
of Rajasthan contained in his d.o. letter dated 
February 23, 1977 to Smt. Serla Grewal :— 

". . .You will appreciate that in spite of 
decades of family planning programme in 
India, except among the educated classes 
who were conscious about the economic 
benefits of a small family, there was total 
lack of realisation of the relationship be- 
tween family planning and economic 
betterment. It was, therefore, rightly decid- 
ed that the admissibility of a large num- 
ber of economic benefits given by, Gov- 
ernment like free education, free medical 
aid, allotment Of . agriculture land free Of" 
cost, loans at low interest rates, employ- 
ment under Government etc., would be 
conditional upon a person, in the repro- 
ductive age, having adopted the national 
policy of family planning, in the form of 
either not having any children for last 10 
years, or either spouse being sterilised. 

These disincentives, if continued" for some 
years, would have brought about a real- 
isation of-relationship bet we family size 
and economic betterment. 

-Unfortunately, the target, oriented ap- 
proach led to disregard for age old senti- 
ments and created" strong antagonism 
among some people. In Rajasthan, this 
was much less than elsewhere. The de- 
sire to soothe this antagonism has now 
panicked us into cancelling all orders, 
rules etc. under which the disincentives 
were prescribed. I am personally sorry 



that this lias happened, because many 
years ago I tried! to convince Government 
about adoption of economic disincentives 
without which, I felt, family planning pro- 
gramme would not succeed. However, the 
changed policy of Government is being - 
implemented. — 

(I only hope the Red Triangle Symbol 
will not have to be replaced by an "Open 
Gate" Symbol!)". 

The Government of Bihar had got so panicky as 
to order total stoppage of sterilisation work in the. 
State, through a Wireless Message dated Feb- 
ruary 27, 1977. Giving his impression of the effect 
of this order, the Additional Secretary, Department 
of Health recorded the following note in File No 
N. 23011/10/77-PLY :— 

"I was told in Bihar :that their Govern- 
ment have issued instructions to stop all 
family planning (sterilisation) work even 
to volunteers at Static hospitals and dis- 
pensaries. I saw in Ranchi at the Durahda 
MCH Centre and in the District Hospital 
a large number of lady volunteers but 
they had to be refused* because of the 
Government instructions. The. local medi- 
cal officers were themselves rather con- 
fused with this instruction. 

I am bringing this to your notice for 
necessary action, as deemed fit. 

Sd/- J. S. Bali . 
Additional Secretary 
5-3-77" 

On this, Shri Gian Prakash, noted as follows : — 

"I spoke to Shri Khanna, Chief. Secretary, 
Bihar. He told me that earlier it had 
been decided to perform sterilisation ope- 
rations on those volunteers who visited 
the hospitals. Later, however, oh. account 
of political reasons, it was decided by the 
Chief Minister, Bihar to suspend work in 
connection with sterilisations altogether 
till such time as the elections are over. 

After AS(H) has seen, AS(FP) may see. 

Sd/- Gian Prakash 
March 7, 1977" 

Legislation providing for compulsory sterilisation : 

21.35 Paragraph 15 of the National Population 
Policy statement of Apnl 16, 1976 reads 
under : — 



as 



"The question of compulsory sterilisation 
has been the subject of lively public debate 
over the last few months. It is clear that 
public opinion is now ready to accept 
much more stringent measures for family 
planning than before. However, the ad- 
ministrative and medical infrastructure in 



164 



many parts of the "country is still not ade- 
quate to cope with the vast implications 
of nation-wide compulsory sterilisation. We 
do not, therefore, intend to bring in Cen- 
tral legislation for this purpose, at least 
for the time being. Some States feel that 
the facilities available with them are ade- 
quate to meet the requirements of com- 
pulsory sterilisation. We arc of the view 
that where a State legislature, in the exer- 
cise of its own powers, decides that the 
time is ripe and it is necessary to pass 
legislation for compulsory sterilisation, it 
may do so. Our advice to the States in 
such cases will be to bring in the limita- 
tion after three children, and to make it 
uniformly applicable to all Indian citizens 
resident in that State without distinction 
of caste, creed or community." 

21.36 The State Governments of Maharashtra, 
Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh accordingly for- 
mulated legislative proposals in this* regard. In 
Maharashtra, "The Maharashtra Compulsory Steri- 
lisation Bill, 1976" was introduced in the State Legis- 
lature sometime in March 1976 and was passed in 
July 1976 after a Joint Committee of \ the Maha- 
rashtra Legislature had considered the views of the 
public and also conducted a survey to ascertain if 
sufficient facilities were available to cope with the 
work of compulsory sterilisation of persons having 
3 qr more children. The title of the Bill was changed 
by the Joint Committee to "Maharashtra Family 
(Restriction on Size) Bill, 1976". The Bill was re- 
ferred by the State Government to the Government 
of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, for the assent 
of the President on August 6, 1976. At the Centre 
the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of 
Health and Family Planning subjected the Bill to 
a i detailed and critical scrutiny mainly from the 
point of view of feasibility, reasonableness and re- 
percussions on law and order. The Ministry of 
Health and Family Planning deputed a team of ex- 
perts to examine the adequacy of infrastructure in 
Maharashtra to enforce compulsory sterilisation and 1 
on an analysis of the Expert Team's Report, it. was 
felt that the State of Maharashtra had the infra- ■ 
structure to enforce the Bill provided the provisions" 
relating to compulsory medical termination of preg- 
nancy were deleted from the Bill. Another susges- 
tion by the Ministry to the State Government was 
in regard to a provision that' an eligible person hav- 
ing three or more children would be exempted" from 
compulsory sterilisation if he gave an undertaking 
not to add further to his family so as to make the 
Bill less rigorous and easy to administer. Ministry 
of Home Affairs also expressed themselves in favour 
of the assent of- the President' being accorded to the 
Bill, An extract from O.M. dated November 2, 1976 
from the Ministry of Home Affairs to the Ministry 
of Health and Family Planning containing the views 
of the Ministry of Home Affairs on this subject is 
reproduced below : — 

"A detailed assessment of the law and 
order situation in the country has since 
been made and after considering all the 



aspects, this Ministry is of the view that 
there should be no objection to the enact- 
ment of the Maharashtra Family Planning 
(Restriction on Size) Bill, 1976. Consider- 
able imagination, foresight and tact would, 
of course, be needed' in the implementation 
of the Act. The pace should not be so 
slow as would make it a dead letter ; 
nor should it be so fast as would lead to 
the generation of organised resistance over 
large areas. It would also have .to be stres- 
sed upon the Maharashtra Government to 
ensure that the proper infrastructure exists 
and that the efforts for educating and 
motivating the people are not relaxed in 
any manner. Further, it would be neces- 
sary to issue executive instructions for 
proper enforcement of the Act in a manner 
that it does not lead' to law and order 
problems or engender widespread disaffec- 
tion in the community. It would be better 
to advise the Maharashtra Government to 
s work out and lay down detailed guidelines 

for proper enforcement of the Act." . 

Finally, the Department of Family Planning submit- 
ted' a note on December 3, 1976 for discussion in 
the Cabinet meeting incorporating the views "of the 
concerned Ministries including Ministry of Law, 
Department of Social Welfare and Planning Com- 
mission. It is seen from the relevant file that the 
item relating to Maharashtra Family (Restriction 
on Size) Bill, 1976 was included as item number 
one on the agenda of the meeting of the Cabinet 
held on December 8, 1976. However, the file re- 
veals that the Bill did not come up._for discussion 
in the Cabinet- meeting -because the item was with- 
drawn. The Cabinet Secretariat informed the Home 
Ministry that the Bill was not likely to come up for 
discussion in the Cabinet in the near future. Sub- 
sequently, on the instruction of the Prime Minister 
conveyed to the then Health Secretary vide PM's 
Secretariat Note dated February 18, 1977, the 
Ministry of Home Affairs was informed 1 by Smt. 
Serla Grewal, as follows : — 

". . . Since it is the policy of the Govern- 
ment that there can be and will be no 
compulsion in the matter of family plan- 
ning, I am directed to request to return the 
Maharashtra Family (Restriction on Size) 
BUI, 1976 to the State Government' to re- 
vise it in consonance with the policy 
decision." 

This was examined in the Ministry of Home Affairs 
in consultation with the Ministry of Law and it was 
decided to withhold the assent of the President to the 
Bill and the State Government was accordinelv 
informed. J 

21.37 The' State Legislation providing for com- 
pulsory sterilisation was in full accord with the Na- 
tional Population Policy and the Ministries of Health 
and Home in the Government of India had recom- 
mended that the assent of the President should be 
accorded to the Maharashtra Bill. Also, the Cabinet- 



163 



in its meeing held on March 24, 1976 had deceided, 
inter aha, that President's assent to the undertaking 
of legislation for compulsory sterilisation could be 
given to States which are satisfied that the time is 
l?\?^ necessary infrastructure exists. However 
the Maharashtra BiU was not even placed before the 
Cabinet for discussion and the President's assent 
to the Bifl was finally withheld on instructions from 
the Prime Minister. 

Role of Mass Media 

21.38 The National Population Policy provided 
for development of a new multi-media motivational 
strategy to utilise all the media channels including the 
radio, television, the press, films eta, for spreading 
the message of family planning. While steps were 
taken at tha level of the Minister of Information and 
Broadcasting to organise a multi-media campaign, 
efforts were made to organise public support for the 
family planning programme through the press In 
his D.O. letter dated May 4, 1976, Shri S. M H 
Burney, Secretary, Ministry of Information and 
Broadcasting, wrote to Dr. A. R. Baji, Principal 
Information Officer, as under : — 

"My Dear Dr. Baji, 

Please organise and see that a number 
of letters to editor in various English, 
Urdu and language newspapers appear in 
regard to support for the family planning 
programme. I mentioned this to you 
yesterday." 

On the other hand, family planning programme was 
included in the list of subjects of pre-censorship vide 
orders dated September 2, 1976 issued under Rule 
48(1) ofDISIR. 

Implementation of the Family Plannig Programme 
by the State Governments 

21.39 As family planning was not specifically in- 
cluded in the Prime Minister's 20-point programme 
announced in July 1975, the Ministry of Health 
and Family Planning sought the approval of the 
Cabinet, inter alia, to the following proposal in a 
note dated March 5, 1976 : — 

v "(8) Family Planning be included as the 
21st point of the development prog- 
ramme." 

The Cabinet which considered this proposal aft its 
meeting held on March 24, 1976, however, decided 
that this was not necqssary, 

21.40 Shri Sanjay Gandhi who was then connected 
with the Youth Congress had announced his 4-point 
action programme sometime in February 1976 in 
which family planning was also included. Even 
though the Cabinet did not agree to include family 
planning in, the 20-point programme, the 4-point 
programme of Shri Sanjay Gandhi was sought to be 
referred to the Congress ruled State Governments 



for implementation. This is clear from the follow- 
ing extracts from the letter dated July 23, 1976 of 
Shri D K. Barooah, the President, All India Cong- 
ress Committee, to the Chief Minister, Himachal 
Pradesh: — - «.,;-,,■• 

". . . . .Keeping this aspect in view, in my 
concluding remarks in the last AICC meet- 
ing held on May 29 and 30, 1976. in 
Delhi. I had called upon our partymen 
to adopt the 4-point programme of the 
Youth Congress alongwith the 20-point 

programme These 4-points are (1) 

Family Planning, (2) Plantation of trees, 
(3) Eradication of illiteracy, and (4) Abo- 
lition of dowry system and eradication of 
caste system. 

"I am sure, the Pradesh Congress Com- 
mittee and State Governments have al- 
ready taken necessary steps for implement- 
ing the 4-point programme alongwith the 
20-point economic prograrnme. I again 
impress upon you that all the programmes 
should be taken up together " 

Since about the time the above circular went round, 
some Congress Chief Ministers and senior officials 
serving under them made speeches and gave instruc- 
tions connecting family planning with Shri Sanjay 
Gandhi or his 4-point programme which later on 
became the 5~point programme. 

21.41 In August 1976, issue of 'Centre Calling', 
a publication of the Department of Family Planning, 
jsl special report by ! Shri P. S. Mehta under- the 
heading "Uttar Pradesh Breaks New Ground" was 
published. Relevant extracts from the report are 
given below : — 

"The State started making' a! big thrust 
forward after the declaration of the na- 
tional emergency. It evolved a charter of 
progress under the 20-point economic 
programme and the 4-point crash prog- 
ramme of the Youth leader Shri Sanjay 
Gandhi. The State leadership has resolved 
to achieve the goals under these .schemes 
within the scheduled time. . ." ... 

21.42 In the record of proceedings of the meeting 
of Commissioners, Dy. Commissioners and Civil 
Surgeons held on August 24, 1976 under the Chair- 
manship of the then Chief Minister, Punjab, it is 
mentioned that :— - 

"Family Planning is one of the items in the 

25-point socio-economic programme . 

The Chief Minister desired that for a social 
programme like fatally planning persuasion 
should play a vital role, but there should 
not be any hesitation in bringing about 
pressure where necessary as the family 
planning programme is in the interest of 
the State and the nation... Tn the end, 



164 



Chief Minister assured full support to the 
officers, who will work for the achievement 
of the family planning targets assigned to 
them and emphasised that the family 
planning | programme should be given top 
priority being one of the 25 -points in the 
socio-economic programme." 

21.43 The Joint Director, Family Planning, Gov- 
ernment of Maharashtra addressed a D.O. letter 
dated September 30, 1976 to various officers in 
the Districts stating that :— 

. "I wish to inform you that Shri Sanjay 
GandhL is visiting Maharashtra State 
about October 28, 1976 and the Chief 
Minister desires that before the visit of 
Shri Sanjay Gandhi, Maharashtra State 

, must have completed 5 lakhs sterilisations. 
You will appreciate the seriousness 
with which the Chief Minister has issued 
instructions and, therefore, though the 
task is stupendous, we shall have to 
leave no stone unturned to achieve this 
objective .....;" 

21.44 The Chief Minister of Hima'chal Pradesh 
while reviewing the implementation of the family 
planning prpgramme made a specific reference to 
the 5-point programme of Shri Sanjay Gandhi as 
may be seen from the following extract from a 
Press Note dated December 20, 1976 issued by the 
State Government : — 

'. ; " The State had achieved over 70% 

of the enhanced target of one lakh sterili- 
sations so far. Emphasising the urgent 
and emergent need of small family norm, 
Dr. Parmar said that the programme 
picked up partidularly after enunciation 
pf 20-point economic programme of our 
dynamic and f alighted Prime Minis ler 
Smt. Indira Gandhi and 5-point prog- 
ramme of Shri Sanjay Gandhi ..,..*' 

21.45 Shri A. L. Nair, Secretary, Health & Fa- 
mily Planning Department, Government of Orissa 
spoke of the services rendered by Shri Sanjay 
Gandhi in the field of family planning as under in 
his letter dated January 17, 1977 to all Collectors 
and Chief Medical Officers of the State : — 

" I am happy to inform you that 

Shri Sanjay Gandhi, our national youth 
leader will be visiting Orissa on the 29th 
and 30th instant. As we are all aware, 
a dynamic impetus has been given by 
him and has continued unabated through- 
out the country to fulfil speedily the objec- 
tives of the national population policy 
enunciated in April, 1976 . Our State 
Government have, therefore, decided that, 
as a token of recognition of his services 
in this highly important field, we should 
observe a Special Family Planning Month, 
throughout the State, with effect from 
29th instant " 



21.46 The Cabinet decided at its meeting on 
March 24, 1976 that it was not necessary to make 
family planning the 21st point of the development 
programme. There is nothing to show that subse- 
quently, the 5-point programme which included 
family planning was adopted by the Government of 
India in the Ministry of Health & Family Planning. 
It,, however, appears that Smt. Indira Gandhi, the 
Prime Minister had publicly commended, the 5-point 
programme as may be seen from the following 
extracts from an article titled "The 20-point and 
5-point programmes" by Shri Shankar Ghose, 
Union Minister of State for Planning which was 
released to the press by the PIB \—j. 

"... .The 5-point programme announced 
by Shri Sanjay Gandhi which has genera- 
ted tremendous enthusiasm, comprises a 
massive movement for family planning.. , 
This programme is supplementary to the 
, 20-point programme announced by the 

leader of the na'tion Smt. Indira Gandhi 
and, in fact, she declared at the AICC 
Session at Gauhati, in November 1976 
that the 5-point programme was "really 
basic to the success of the other program- 
mes......" 

As desired by the Prime Minister, Smt. Indira 
Gandhi a conference of Chief Ministers/Governors 
of States under President? s rule was convened on 
January 18, 1977 to evaluate the positive gains 
tender the 25-point programme. In that meeting 
family planning was discussed as one of the points 
of the 5-point programme as adopted alongwith 
the 20-point programme. 

Coercive measures devised by State Governments 

21 .47 According to information furnished by the 
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare to the Com- 
mission, the performance graph touched 2.67 million ■ 
sterilisations in 1975-76 and rose to the peak level 
of 8.1 million in 1976-77. Whereas 10 States and 
4 Union Territories had exceeded the targets in 
1975-76, 18 States and 5 Union Territories ex- 
ceeded the targets in 1976-77. The upsurge in the 
performance has been attributed by the Ministry 
to, inter alia, the importance given to the Family 
Planning Programme under the 5-point programme 
of Shri Sanjay . Gandhi and the resultant marked 
increase in the commitment for the programme at 
political levels. In State$/Union Territories such 
as Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Haryana, Delhi all depart- 
ments were intimately involved in the Family Plan- 
ning Programme and specific targets were allotted 
to each of them, A glimpse of the coercive methods 
employed by some of the State Governments for 
achieving the sterilisation targets may be had from 
the following illustrative samples : — • 

(a) Rule 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Govern- 
ment Servants (Special Provisions relat- 
ing to Family Planning) Rules, 1976 
notified on July 2, 1976 provided that: — 

"It shall be part of the duties of 
every Government servant to periodi- 
cally motivate suph member of eligi- 



165 



ble persons to get themselves steri- 
lised and to perform such other work 
in pursuance of the family planning 
programme as may, from time' to 
time, be directed by the State Govern- 
ment, failing which, the payment of 
his salary and allowances or his 
annual increments or both shall be 
liable to be stopped for such time 
and subject to such conditions as the 
State Government may from time 
to time by general and special order 
direct." 

The Chief Secretary to the Government of Uttar 
Pradesh issued the following crash wireless message 

?u l&- 7 -> 1976 t0 ^ the Di strict Magistrates and 
the Divisional Commissioners as part of the drive 
to achieve the target : — 

"GOVERNMENT ATTACH HIGHEST 
IMPORTANCE TO ACHIEVEMENT 
OF FAMILY PLANNINQ TARGETS/ ) 
PRESUME YOU HAVE ALREADY 
FIXED TARGETS FOR EACH DIS- 
TRICT AND DIVISIONAL LEVEL 
OFFICER (.) INFORM EVERYBODY 
THAT FAILURE TO ACHIEVE MON- 
THLY TARGETS WILL NOT ONLY 
RESULT IN STOPPAGE OF SALARY 
BUT ALSO SUSPENSION AND SEVER- 
EST PENALTIES (.) GALVANISE 
ENTIRE ADMINISTRATIVE MACHI- 
NERY INTO ACTION FORTHWITH 
REPEAT FORTHWITH AND CONTI- 
NUE TO REPORT DAILY PROGRESS 
BY CRASH WIRELESS TO ME AND 
SECRETARY TO CHIEF MINIS- 
TERS-FIGURES UNDER EACH 
HEAD SHOULD INDICATE DAILY 
ACHIEVEMENT FIRST AND CUMU- 
LATIVE ACHIEVEMENT NEXT (.)" 

(b) In order to impress upon the Divisional 
Commissioners and District -Magistrates 
in Bihar, the need for strong measures 
to achieve sterilisation targets, the Health, 
Commissioner, Government of Bihar 
wrote to them as under on 12-8-76 : — 

"....The State Government take 
a serious view of the non-fulfilment 
of sterilisation targets prescribed for 
the subordinate field staff of the 
various Departments. Some of the 
districts have prescribed cards for 
all categories of field staff who have 
been given family planning targets 
in which targets given and progress 
achieved has to be shown for every 
month as duly certified by the 
Medical Officer of the area. The 
. salary/fixed T.A./T.A. of the staff 
Is to be released only after target 
prescribed is achieved. The same 
procedure could be adopted-in other 
districts also." 

S/25 HA/78— 22 



The local authorities resorted to actual 
stoppage of salary of school teachers in 
some districts of Bihar. The Education 
Commissioner issued instructions . in his 
letter dated November 16, 1976 that 
salaries of school teachers must not be 
stopped for non-fulfilment of targets. 
These instructions were not strictly 
. followed with the result tha t the State 
Education Department had to get the Chief 
Secretary to issue specific instructions to 
the pistrict Officers not to stop the pay- 
ment of salaries of school teachers vide 
hjs letter dated December 18, 1976 fol- 
lowed by a Home Department's wireless 
message dated January 18, 1977. 

(c) In a letter dated August 28, 1976 to the 
Financial Commissioner and Heads of 
Departments of the , State Government, 
the Chief Secretary, Government of 
Haryana conveyed the decision that "all 
'eligible Government Servants* who have 
not already got themselves sterilised shall 
get themselves sterilised. > .by 'due dates' 
in two phases. In the first phase all ' 
eligible Government servants with three 
or more children are to get sterilised by 
October 31, 1976 while in the second 
phase all the remaining eligible Govern- 
ment servants are to get themselves steri- 
lised by December 31, 1976 " 

Subsequently in his letter dated November 
23, 1976, the Chief Secretary Haryana 
stated that "those eligible Government 
servants falling in phase I, who do not 
get themselves sterilised by November 
30, 1976 will be liable to punishment 
under the Punjab Civil Services (Punish- 
ment & Appeal) Rules, 1952". 

(d) The following extracts from a letter dated 
October 15, 1976 from the-Deputy Com- 
missioner. Kulu to all Heads of Offices 
in Kulu District give an idea of the steps 
taken in Himachal Pradesh to achieve the 
sterilisation target : — 

"You are aware that in the meeting 
held on 25th of September 1976, the 
Hon'ble Health Minister of Himachal 
Pradesh, addressing to the officers of 
the District in the presence of the 
Hon'ble Agricultural Minister, Hima- 
chal Pradesh, Hon'ble Minister of 
State for Cooperation Shri Mansa 

Ram warned that any Govern- 

ment officers/official in different Offi- 
ces eligible for sterilisation but not 
undergoing sterilisation operation 
without any valid reason, will not be 
tolerated any more, and his pay 
would be withheld till he gets himself 
sterilised. We wanted to cover all 
Govt, employees under family plan- 
ning campaign in the month of Sep- 
tember 1976, but unfortunately we 



166 



have been able to achieve only 40% 
of the target. Even .the overall pic- 
ture of the District is very distressing. 
In other districts both persuasive and 
coercive methods have been emp- 
loyed and all officers in the District 
are completely involved in the family 
planning campaign. In our District 
there is apparently no such involve- 
ment and most of the officers have 
remained completely indifferent to 
the family planning efforts. Now such 
indifference cannot be brooked and 
even coercive methods have to be 
applied in resistant cases . k . ." 

(e) According to the information contained in 
the Rajasthan Government's reply to the 
Commission's questionnaire on Family 
Planning, the following were among the 
decisions taken at the Regional meetings 
of Collectors arhd Supdts. of Police held 
under the Chairmanship of the Chief Mi- 
nister at Jaipur, Bikaner, Jodhpur and 
Udaipur during September, 1976 :— 

"(i) Entries in Annual Confidential Re- 
port of the District level officers will 
be made on the basis of the evalua- 
tion of the success in family planning 
programme in their area'; 

(ii) The birth of fourth child to a Govt 
servant will be deemed as 'mis-con- 
duct for which necessary amendmen t 
would be made in the rules." 

The following extracts from a letter dated 
September 19, 1976 from the Collector, 
Churu District to all the officers in the 
District give an idea of the pressure put 
on the Government officials for achieving 
the sterilisation targets : te 

" it is hereby ordered that Gov- 
ernment employees who are eligible 
tor sterilisation and who have not 
yet undergone sterilisation will not 
be taken on duty from the 1st Octo- 
ber, 1976 till they produce a certifi- 
cate to the effect that thev/or their 
wives has undergone sterilisation. 

You are also requested to ensure that 
aU employees and officers of you 
department achieve 50% f the 
^ets already communicated to vou 
17« h * °? C l d-o- letter No. ?68o" 
1753 dated the 20th August, 1976 

or aept 1976 should not be paid to 
the employees of the offices and Fbev 
may also not be taken on duty f££ 



(f) In Karnataka, the Inspector General of 
Police issued Circular Memo dated Octo- 
ber 12, 1976 to the Addl. IGP(CID), 
DIsGP, SPs, asking the unit officers to 
instruct their subordinates to enforce the 
provisions of the Prevention of Beggary 
Act, 1975 and to send the beggars to Dis- 
trict Hospital and other institutions for 
sterilisation. 

(g) In reply to the Commission's questionnaire 
on family planning, the Delhi Administra- 
tion has stated as under : — 

"......Verbal instructions were given 

particularly in the various meetings 
taken by the LG & CEC wherein 
Heads of Departments were exhorted 
to ensure that all eligible couples got 
themselves sterilised and if necessary 
other measures including delay in 
payment of salaries to the employees 
be resorted to." 



"Apart from incentives and disin- 
centives given in Circular No F 
2(16)/SI/M&PH dated 5-5-1976 the 
following types of pressures were also 
brought on the Government emp- 
loyees : 

1. The Govt, teachers were im- 
pressed upon to motivate atleast five 
cases each. 

2 Threats of transfer, suspension 
and termination, of services were held 
out particularly i n respect of Educa- 
tion Deptt., MCD and DDA 



** 



.....It is correct that in a number 
oi cases of Govt, servants who did not 
subscribe to the Governmental poli- 
cies, notices of termination of service 
were issued. These were, however 
revoked when the_ concerned -official^ 
got-themselves sterilised. 

otw?' ? nUmber of teachers and 
other employees were relieved and 

asked to report to the headquarters 
for further postings. Those who 
underwent sterilisation were given the 
posting orders. ■ e 



of "35? of the DDA ' the allotf ^ 

of plots m resettlement colonies 
applicants for allotment of fiats, S 



j ms OTssM a sssCT aa ra ■.zz-.xz. 



167 



** 



as well as industrial plots were re- 
quired to furnish proof of sterilisa- 
tion before finalisation of allotment 
and handing over of the plot/flat 

"Similar .restriction was placed in 
respect of application for change 
of plot where applicants were asked 
to^bnng' 20 cases of family plan- 
ning. 



sometimes in June, 1976, oral 

instructions were given by the 
EC(F&S) Shri Bahl, that the applica- 
tions made by the persons who al- 
ready have two or three children 
living ' and had not been sterilised 
for addition of more children in food 
card may be kept pending till fur- 
ther instructions are given -by him. 
No instructions were, however, given 
by him till February 1977 and till 
then such -applications were kept pen- 
ding with the Deptt. in Feb., 77, 
Shri Bahl gave oral instructions that 
these applications be disposed off as 
per rules without insisting on pro- 
duction of sterilisation certificate as 
prescribed. The Deptt acted accord- 
ingly :." 



According to information furnished by the State 
Governments and U.T. Administrations instances 
of. one or more of the measures such as non- 
payment- of salaries, withholding of increments, 
transfer . to far off places, suspension and even 
termination of services had been reported by the 
Governments of Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Madhya 
Pradesh, Maharashtra, . Rajasthan; Delhi etc., as 
among the coercive methods adopted in the course 
of sterilisation campaign. 

... 21.48 The Commission had . circulated a ques- 
tionnaire to the- State Governments/Union Territori- 
es Administrations seeking information inter alia 
regarding the number of unmarried persons sterilis- 
ed and the number of deaths resulting from sterilisa- 
tion or lack of after care thereof. Information 
based on the response to the questionnaire is as 
follows :- — 



(b) Reports/jcomplaints oi-deaiitf have bcea 
received in 1,774 cases,- the break-up 
being Rajasthan (217), Uttar Pradesh 
(201), Maharashtra (151), Andhra Pra- 
desh (135), Haryana (132), Madhya 
Pradesh ( 1 32), Karnataka ( 1 23 ) , Assam 
(95), Tamil Nadu (90), Bihar (80), 
Delhi (78), Gujarat (68), Orissa (68), 
West Bengal (65), Himachal Pradesh 
(60), Kerala "(40), Punjab (29), J & K 
(2), Tripura (2), Goa, Daman and Diu 
(2), Pondicherry (2), Chandigarh (1) 
and Mizoram (1). The remaining State 
Governments and Union Territories 
Admns. have furnished NIL information. 

21 .49 The methods adopted in some States to 
achieve the stupendous targets evoked resistance to 
the family planning programme! This aspect was 
brought out in the Home Department's note giving 
,an assessment regarding the resistance to Family 
Planning Programme in Uttar Pradesh furnished to 
the Ministry of 'Home Affairs vide letter dated 
November 18, 1976. Relevant extracts from the 
aforesaid note are reproduced below : — 

"..... .The words family planning and ste- 
rilisation have almost become synonymous 
and therefore in the common parlance 
when people express their views against 
the family planning, their opposition is 
actually against sterilisation. The decision 
of the State Administration to pursue and 
implement the national population" . pro- 
gramme of family planning by undertaking 
a fixed number of sterilisation operations 
and fixing quotas for the districts and 
the departments has generated a sense ot 
apprehension and has evoked opposition 
from political parties Hindu and Muslim 
communal organisations and certain orga- 
nised sections of society. Even those sec- 
tions which subscribe to the policy and 
programme of the family planning, have 
expressed their opposition to use of.coer- 
cion threat or force in sterilisation, and 
the manner of execution of the pro- 
gramme 



** 



** 



Xa) 548 reports/complaints regarding sterili- 
% f , sation of unmarried "persons had been re- 
ceived during the period of emergency, the 
Statewise break-up being UP (164), 
Haryana (105), Macthya Pradesh (84), 
Rajasthan (44), Maharashtra (37), Delhi 
(32), Bihar (30), Assam (21), Punjab 
(15), Gujarat. (5), West Bengal (5), 
Himachal Pradesh ( 3) , . Orissa ( 1 ) , Goa, 
Daman & Diu (1), and Pondichery (1>. 
Relevant information has not been furnishr 
ed by Tamil Nadu- The remaining States 
and Union Territories have furnished NIL 
information. 



Amongst the other, organised sec- 
tions, Madhyarmk Shikshak Sangh 
(Sharma Faction) in its resolutions and 
meetings, while extending its cooperation 
to the family planning programme has 
strongly assailed the policy of suspension 
and the withholding of salaries of teachers 
for failure to achieve the quota. The 
teachers, in general at other places in the 
State have come to notice criticising their 
involvement in the family planning. But 
for the emergency, by how a strong com- 
mon front would have, been formed bet- 
ween them and the students to oppose this 



168 



most important . programme of the 
Administration 



State 



Summing up it needs to be reiterated that 
opposition to family planning programme 
is actually opposition to the policy of 
sterilisation. The following appear to be 
some of the reasons for this opposition :— 



** 



#* 



(vi) The drastic disincentives seem to have 
generated an apprehension thai in- 
stead .of appeal, education and per- 
suation, the Government have adopt- 
ed the tactics of threats, pressure and 
coercion. Obviously such measur- 
es have not been relished even though 
they are for their own and nation's 
ultimate good. 

(vii) There are complaints that field agen- 
cies adopt various highhanded mea- 
. sures to achieve the target and that 
the Government machinery is not 
fully geared to stupendous task it has 
undertaken. The follow up action 
concerning sterilised cases needs tan- 
gible improvement" 



Attitude of Ministry of Health and Family Planning 
to allegations of coercion and pressure. 

21.50 Dealing with the allegations of coercion 
and pressure in the implementation of the family 
planning programme during the emergency and 
the reaction of the Ministry to such allegations, 
Shn Gian Prakash, has stated, as under, in his 
detailed note of March 24, 1977 : 

*'....,. a few incidents of law and order in 
connection with family planning due to 
alleged excesses on the part of officials 
were reported from time to time, particu- 
larly from the States of Haryana, UP 
Rajasthan and Bihar. Attention of the 
Minister was also drawn in Parliament to 
the withholding of salaries of teachers etc., 
m Delhi. These were immediately sent to 
the States concerned asking for reports 
hi October, Minister of Health and Fp' 
wrote a letter to : th& Chief Ministers, con- 
gratulating them on the good work done 
■in the field of family planning. He also 
however, emphasised, T must add, how- 
ever, that we have received a few reports 
about ineligible persons being sterilised 
and coercive methods being employed. I 
would urge you. kindly to ensure that only 
eiigible persons are motivated to undergo 
sterilisation, and particular attention Is 
paid to post-operative care of the 
acceptors'. 



Again in the meeting of the Consul- 
tative Committee held on 18-10-76, Minis- 
ter stated that all cases of coercion 
brought to notice would be looked into 
and Minister would write to Health Minis- 
ters concerned personally. .. .meetings were 
organised with the Chief Ministers and 
Health Ministers of the States concerned 
with a view to personally impress : upon 
them not to give any chance for complaints 
and to run the whole programme as a 
voluntary programme ..... As and when 
complaints, were received in the Ministry 
they were invariably forwarded to the State 
Governments -for- enquiry and report 

21.51 According to the information furnished by 
the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, nearly 
300 complaints were received during the emergency 
and these were referred to the concerned State Gov-. 
ernment/UT Administration for investigation and 
remedial action. It appears that the general approach 
of the Central Government in this- regard was not 
to interfere with the freedom of action of the State 
Government in implementing the family planning 
programme. One of the instances 'which brings out 
this observation has been found on the scrutiny of 
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare file 
No. F. 12011/3|/76-Poly(P). In this case, the 
Department of Revenue and Banking brought to 
the notice of Ministry of Health and Family Plan- 
ning vide their letter dated October 10, 1976 that 
the District Magistrate, Aligarh (UP) has issued 
the following instructions to the State Bank of India 
and Central Bank, Aligarh, with copies endorsed to 
other nationalised banks for information and similar 
action : — 

"Please note that in connection with the 
Family Planning Programme all heads of 
offices have been directed to give the 
following certificate along with their pay 
bill for the month of August 1 976 to enable 
them to draw their salaries : 

ALL ELIGIBLE CASES FOR 
STERILISATION IN MY OFFICE/ 
DEPARTMENT HAVE BEEN 
STERILISED. PERSONS WHO 
HAVE REFUSED TO GET THEM- 
SELVES STERILISED HAVE NOT 
BEEN PAID THEIR SALARIES. 

Please ensure that the bills/cheques for 
payments are cleared only if the above 
certificate is attached to the bill/payment 
authority concerned. Kindly acknowledge 
receipt of the above communication. 



Sd/- 

R- S. MATHUR, 
District Magistrate, Aligarh 

21-8-1976." 



169 



21.52 This was examined in the Ministry and even 
though at the lower level of processing an exception 
was taken to the District Magistrate's order as being 
against the .Government policy, the Deputy Secretary 
(Policy) did not find much substance in the matter 
and recommended that at best it may be brought to 
the notice of the State Health Secretary.' Smt. Sarla 
Grewal before whom the file was put up for orders 
and Shri Gian Prakash, then Union Health Secretary, 
made the following notations : — 

"We may not take any action. The State 
is competent to do so. 



Sd/- 
SARLA GRE